# No Burn I Joist Protection



## RJJ (Aug 8, 2013)

Anyone out there have experience with NO Burn Plus or other products?

ICC ESR report 1838


----------



## cda (Aug 8, 2013)

Seen it demoed

Guess it depends on why they are using it and what code section they are trying to achieve


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 8, 2013)

Brings back memories of the Minny Soda meetings; when the fire fighters left just before the vote to require I-joists to be coated for fire protection; and it failed.  If it protects the I-joist with a one hour fire rating I'm for it.  Uncle Bob


----------



## fatboy (Aug 8, 2013)

I've heard that TJI has already pulled it from the market, not cost effective.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 8, 2013)

not a fire retardant for fire rating purposes...... used to slow down flame spread and smoke development, not act as an fire barrier(thermal) -

See scope of ICC report - section 2.0


----------



## jar546 (Aug 8, 2013)

No Burn I Joist Protection

They gave us test data to prove it was a minimum 15 minute barrier

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kearney.200 (Aug 8, 2013)

I have a guy here in town that applies it, I have allowed it in limited situations one was on and addition were there where so many penetrations that it was very difficult to meet the fire and smoke barrier requirements, the other was a church lobby were they wanted to keep the high vault and exposed beams.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 9, 2013)

Jeff: That must be NO Burn Of Northeast!


----------



## jar546 (Aug 9, 2013)

Yes, we just approved it for a new home with TJI


----------



## cda (Aug 9, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Yes, we just approved it for a new home with TJI


Why?

Just an add on

Or code related??


----------



## jar546 (Aug 9, 2013)

PA has a requirement for TJI's in lieu of the sprinklers in the IRC for 1&2 family.  This will be in place of 1/2" sheetrock under the 1st floor.


----------



## cda (Aug 9, 2013)

Wow , not sure if equivalent ??


----------



## jar546 (Aug 9, 2013)

Actually is equivalent and they have data to prove it.  In addition, the applicator is the company that certifies the application taking responsibility and sharing the liability monkey.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 9, 2013)

The other trade off was 5/8 plywood. I did a  burn test as well per the ICC report. It past. 1/2 " dry wall good for at best 20minutes.

5/8 plywood on fire in less than 8 minutes.


----------



## cda (Aug 9, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> The other trade off was 5/8 plywood. I did a  burn test as well per the ICC report. It past. 1/2 " dry wall good for at best 20minutes.5/8 plywood on fire in less than 8 minutes.


Ok more wow interesting info


----------



## cda (Aug 9, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Actually is equivalent and they have data to prove it.  In addition, the applicator is the company that certifies the application taking responsibility and sharing the liability monkey.


And the link to the data is


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 27, 2013)

> when the fire fighters left just before the vote to require I-joists to be coated for fire protection; and it failed


Some.........unfortunately the majority :-(


----------



## RJJ (Aug 27, 2013)

FM: It seems to be ok. Time will tell. This has gotten tossed into the mix in PA because they took out the requirement for sprinklers. Then cut a deal for 1/2 drywall or 5/8" plywood. Both good for less then 20 minutes. So by the time the fire trucks pull up the floors are just about ready to fail. Anyway you look at it & I Joist home is going to be a trash fire.


----------



## GBrackins (Aug 29, 2013)

I just received this from Weyerhaeuser in regards to their I-joists       Weyerhaeuser :: Flak Jacket Fire Protection    if you click on the FAQ section they have their ES report linked.


----------



## TheCommish (Aug 30, 2013)

so when they are installed vertical what doe the movie look like?


----------



## jpranch (Aug 30, 2013)

Sounds like the jury is still out? New code requirement? Industry will respond. Now I know what might come next but R&D from industry, don't dismiss it. Never discount first to market.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 30, 2013)

Very Interesting!


----------



## kyhowey (Aug 30, 2013)

I wonder if you cut a hole in the I-joist, if the edges of the cut hole are to be treated with a fire retardant?  Didn't read anything in the ESR report about it.


----------



## booneglyn (Oct 7, 2013)

I am an Engineer with the Trus Joist division of Weyerhaeuser.  Regarding "Membrane Protection" of light-weight framing (this would include I-joists, plated trusses, and light weight steel joists), these provisions for single-family structures are listed in section R501.3 of the 2012 IRC.  As noted earlier, Pennsylvania adopted nearly identical language in their own code.

Flak Jacket is a *Factory Applied* protective coating offered by Trus Joist on our TJI joist products.  It's available in the markets where this code provision has been adopted.

No Burn is a *Field Applied* intumescent paint that can be applied to framing members after installation.  While some builders may have used this on TJI joists, Weyerhaeuser does not endorse this product.

We have tested and gained approval of the Flak Jacket coating by meeting the requirements of Exception 4 of R501.3.  We have followed the ICC-ES AC-14 Acceptance Criteria which requires a loaded assembly fire test using the E119 time-temperature curves.  This assembly test has demonstrated that a floor system built with TJI joists with Flak Jacket protection provides equivalent fire endurance to a floor system built with unprotected 2x10 dimension lumber.

Per our evaluation report, web holes that are within the limits of our standard published hole charts are acceptable without further field treatment.

For more information or questions, you can contact our technical support team from our website Weyerhaeuser :: Flak Jacket Fire Protection.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 8, 2013)

booneglyn said:
			
		

> I am an Engineer with the Trus Joist division of Weyerhaeuser.  Regarding "Membrane Protection" of light-weight framing (this would include I-joists, plated trusses, and light weight steel joists), these provisions for single-family structures are listed in section R501.3 of the 2012 IRC.  As noted earlier, Pennsylvania adopted nearly identical language in their own code.Flak Jacket is a *Factory Applied* protective coating offered by Trus Joist on our TJI joist products.  It's available in the markets where this code provision has been adopted.
> 
> No Burn is a *Field Applied* intumescent paint that can be applied to framing members after installation.  While some builders may have used this on TJI joists, Weyerhaeuser does not endorse this product.
> 
> ...


Very interesting and I hope that you continue to participate in the forum.  I hope this is not a hit and run post a link to endorse a product post.

Is Weyerhauser interested in supporting this forum?


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 8, 2013)

I have approved the no burn myself for I joist protection. I think it is better than the 1/2 drywall because the pa code doesn't require the dry wall to be spackeled.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 13, 2013)

From experience Flak jacket is better. One question I had for those at the ICC Expo was what is the millage of cover? No Burn works on 12m. I under stand that Flak Jacket is applied by brush in the line. It dose not get applied to the bottom cord.


----------



## cda (Oct 13, 2013)

booneglyn said:
			
		

> I am an Engineer with the Trus Joist division of Weyerhaeuser.  Regarding "Membrane Protection" of light-weight framing (this would include I-joists, plated trusses, and light weight steel joists), these provisions for single-family structures are listed in section R501.3 of the 2012 IRC.  As noted earlier, Pennsylvania adopted nearly identical language in their own code.Flak Jacket is a *Factory Applied* protective coating offered by Trus Joist on our TJI joist products.  It's available in the markets where this code provision has been adopted.
> 
> No Burn is a *Field Applied* intumescent paint that can be applied to framing members after installation.  While some builders may have used this on TJI joists, Weyerhaeuser does not endorse this product.
> 
> ...


Welcome welcome welcome

Never heard of flack jacket till now, thanks


----------



## fatboy (Oct 13, 2013)

Heard about, had one contractor use it once. Now they put the sprinklers in. A friend in the lumber business told me the Flak Jacket TJI's are about a buck a lineal foot more, adds up quick.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 14, 2013)

Sprinklers are cheaper!


----------



## TJI Guy (Oct 21, 2013)

> A friend in the lumber business told me the Flak Jacket TJI's are about a buck a lineal foot more, adds up quick.


Well, depending on series and depth of joist, the price per lineal foot would have to fluctuate.  Even at $1 per LF, on a 3000 sq ft house you have approximately 1000 LF of I-joist in the 1st floor frame?  So that's $1000 extra for Flak Jacket.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 21, 2013)

And if you go the P2094 protection route, sprinkler heads are about $12, 3/4 pex is about .55/ft, the plumber is working in the basement already, sprinkler heads cover 400 sf............do the math. If your plumber is charging you more the $50 a head, he's screwing you.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 23, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> And the link to the data is


Sorry, just saw this now.  Data was provided on paper to us so I don't have a link.  I would check their website for data but I'm not sure they would have everything posted there.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 23, 2013)

Just looked at their website and they need to provide more technical data for code officials.  I can only find marketing materials and no factual data or test reports or even links to ICC reports.

what is interesting is that when you google "no burn I joist protection" out forum and this thread comes up number 1 above their own site.  Maybe they should sponsor part of this forum with a banner............


----------



## RJJ (Oct 23, 2013)

You have a contractor in Mountain Top right up the street!


----------



## GBrackins (Oct 23, 2013)

the link to the report is found in their FAQ link, here is a link to the report, Section 4.17

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files//ESR-1153.pdf


----------



## forensics (Dec 10, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> And if you go the P2094 protection route, sprinkler heads are about $12, 3/4 pex is about .55/ft, the plumber is working in the basement already, sprinkler heads cover 400 sf............do the math. If your plumber is charging you more the $50 a head, he's screwing you.


Fatboy is spot on but...

I would add that the 50 bucks per head number is the hard cost and then only in an area that has embraced the sprinklers installed in multipurpose applications by the plumbers. When the volume goes up the price goes down.

States and jurisdictions who cling to the commercial and industrial regulations in the planning and execution of fire sprinklers by traditional fire sprinkler companies are doomed to much higher prices and lower availability. Several states that have written restrictive and onerous sprinkler regulations to defeat the code mandates and the end result is far more expensive installations.

I guess their predictions that sprinklers are not a good value have come full circle and become self-fulfilling because the sprinklers are not a good investment in those communities.

Residential fire protection is not free ....We will provide it as a government function or we will require the production builders to mitigate the risk they manufacture in light weight constructed new homes. Personal responsibility by the homeowner is the best way!


----------

