# PEX penetrations through 1 hr wall - California - help



## jakesktm (Mar 29, 2021)

> In the plumbing code it does specify: "Combustible piping installations shall be protected i_n accordance with the appropriate fire resistance rating requirements in the building code_ that list the acceptable area, height, and type of construction for use in specific occupancies to assure compliance and integrity of the fire resistance rating prescribed." Section 1401.1



Inspector wants metal penetrations in a one hour wall even though it isn't specified in the building code? 

Pex is rated for up to three-hour fire assemblies per ASTM E119. The problem is what comprises the "assembly" - the wall or the penetration?


----------



## cda (Mar 29, 2021)

Not sure your question

Might want to restate

If it is a true rated wall,,, normally the entire wall is the Assembly.

If you put a hole in it or run something into  or thru it,,,

Ye shall properly fire stop it,,,, with approved method, per size of penetration and the material you are penetrating it with

BOTH sides normally

So what is missing??


----------



## classicT (Mar 29, 2021)

What firestop assembly are you proposing? Depending upon the firestopping system used, some may require a metal piper where the penetration must be rated for 3-hrs.


----------



## TheCommish (Mar 29, 2021)

show  me a  listed design for the pex straight through the rated wall.  similar  to this https://www.adfire.com/media/1467/w-l-2486_021207.pdf


----------



## e hilton (Mar 29, 2021)

I have been following this on another forum, not my issue but i can add some details.  Its in a residence, he has about 8 pex pipes going through the ceiling of the basement, when complete the ceiling will have one layer of 5/8” gwb on the living side, and he’s calling that the 1 hr rated surface.  He put in a piece of horizontal 2x12 blocking with holes drilled for the pex, one pex per hole.  Very neatly done.  The inspector has rejected it without quoting a code section.   Apparently the issue is that the face of the 2x12 was intentionally set 5/8” below the bottom of the floor joists, such that when the gwb is applied to the ceiling the face of the 2x will be flush with the face of the rock.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 30, 2021)

*


			https://uponorglobal.azureedge.net/-/media/uponor-global/resources/manuals/us/pdam.pdf?rev=e7c5e0ae767946f197cca154288baf1c
		

*
*


			https://www.gwkent.com/media/pdf/product/4245/AQUAPEX_Install.pdf
		

*


----------



## TheCommish (Mar 30, 2021)

So what type of residential construction requires a 1 hour rated ceiling? not a SFH, Duplex requires 1 hour between penetrations  speaks to penetration's.

If we are talking about  basement ceiling protecting  light weigh floor systems constructions 302.13 allow penetrations


----------



## e hilton (Mar 30, 2021)

TheCommish said:


> So what type of residential construction requires a 1 hour rated ceiling?


My guess ... good ol boy terminology.   Using 5/8” gwb on the ceiling makes it a rated ceiling.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 30, 2021)

Many fire-rated penetrations for plastic (PEX, PVC, etc.) require a metal sleeve, with the space between the pipe and sleeve filled with an intumescent compound.  In case of fire the intumescent swells up and crushes the pipe to keep hot gasses from getting through the wall or floor.


----------



## e hilton (Mar 30, 2021)

I doubt the expanding foam will crush the pipe.


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 5, 2021)

OK we are at an impasse. The owner is furious with the City inspector. I removed the blocking completely and we are at square one. 

This is a duplex application two story - one unit above and one below with plumbing routed through the space between floors. 

This utility room sits outside the main downstairs unit in a dedicated utility space that is indoor/outdoor with access to the between floors space. 

originally the ceiling of this room was not sheetrocked and all plumbing went vertically to the floor joist assembly above and then horizontally between floors to the wall access point/s.

Now - the inspector wants the utility room fire blocked from the between floors space as well as the ceiling and that is where we are:/ In order to sheet rock now I will have to completely disconnect the plumbing and figure out how to run it through sheetrock.

Seems to me the inspector is fire barrier paranoid and wants everything in that utility room sealed:/ He even mentioned the homeowner install linked smoke alarms :0

So I removed the blocking and the downstairs tenant is without water.


----------



## cda (Apr 5, 2021)

jakesktm said:


> OK we are at an impasse. The owner is furious with the City inspector. I removed the blocking completely and we are at square one.
> 
> This is a duplex application two story - one unit above and one below with plumbing routed through the space between floors.
> 
> ...




So are there approved plans for this job??

Do they show any rated assemblies???   Or state that they should be rated?


Is this a one horse/ inspector town??? Or if not talk to his boss.


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 5, 2021)

cda said:


> So are there approved plans for this job??
> 
> Do they show any rated assemblies???   Or state that they should be rated?
> 
> ...


Yes there are approved plans but no assemblies on the detail and certainly nothing about the plumbing penetrating sheetrock. No mention at all.

Yes this is a one inspector city. And he is new, 6 months on the job.

City planning and building department are the same and there is no city planner or director. 

We can only appeal to the city manager who is not a contractor.


----------



## cda (Apr 5, 2021)

jakesktm said:


> Yes there are approved plans but no assemblies on the detail and certainly nothing about the plumbing penetrating sheetrock. No mention at all.
> 
> Yes this is a one inspector city. And he is new, 6 months on the job.
> 
> ...




ok before you go to the boss

Ask the nice inspector for the sections that these requirements are from.

IF supplied review them to see if they apply...

If he cannot supply them,,,,   HE cannot enforce them,,,    At that time it is time for face to face with city manager,,, with documentation in hand


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 5, 2021)

cda said:


> ok before you go to the boss
> 
> Ask the nice inspector for the sections that these requirements are from.
> 
> ...


I spoke with the engineer and he is getting an assembly together. I have asked the building inspector for the code section and have not yet received it. I will let you guys know what thee assembly comes back as.


----------



## e hilton (Apr 5, 2021)

jakesktm said:


> In order to sheet rock now I will have to completely disconnect the plumbing and figure out how to run it through sheetrock.


Step back and take a deep breath and a cold beer.  In commercial construction the sheetrockers close up plumbing chases all the time without removing the pipes.


----------



## e hilton (Apr 5, 2021)

Jake, you posted this on another forum and included a good picture.  Can you post that here?   I’m thinking you need go move the 2x blocking up so it is flush with the studs, and then just run a layer of 5/8 gwb for the ceiling.


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 5, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Jake, you posted this on another forum and included a good picture.  Can you post that here?   I’m thinking you need go move the 2x blocking up so it is flush with the studs, and then just run a layer of 5/8 gwb for the ceiling.


I cannot link the photo because it isn't hosted?


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 5, 2021)




----------



## cda (Apr 5, 2021)

jakesktm said:


>




That is a work of art,,, How could some one say disturb that???

The holes not not four times as big as you need them. The wood fit is pretty.


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 5, 2021)

jakesktm said:


> I will have to completely disconnect the plumbing and figure out how to run it through sheetrock.


I think your inspector is correct.  You are penetrating a rated floor assembly (which also probably doesn't meet the IIC requirements).  The penetration needs to be firestopped.  In commercial construction they "prerock" the areas where there are penetrations during rough-in.  Install enough gyp to make all your penetrations and firestop, then when you rock the rest of the room, you butt up to the prerocked area and tape the joint.   

Approved plans form the city are no defense against code violations found later during construction.  Also, firestopping is rarely submitted for permit.  The contractor is responsible for getting all the penetration firestop designed and providing the inspector with the listed systems at the field inspection.  

This inspector sounds like he's just doing his job.


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 5, 2021)

cda said:


> That is a work of art,,, How could some one say disturb that???
> 
> The holes not not four times as big as you need them. The wood fit is pretty.



It is not an approved 1-hour assembly. As others have suggested, placing it higher between the studs to allow 5/8" GypX to be attached to the joists "could" be acceptable, although we are still stuck with 18 individual penetrations. I guess I was thinking by assembling multiple penetrations onto one block it would reduce the overall penetration to one or two blocks that could be seamed. However it is now apparent that it isn't that simple. There has to be an approved assembly, either by a UL or ASTM approved product on the market or UL approved assembly.  Haven't found one yet.


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 5, 2021)

jakesktm said:


> It is not an approved 1-hour assembly. As others have suggested, placing it higher between the studs to allow 5/8" GypX to be attached to the joists "could" be acceptable, although we are still stuck with 18 individual penetrations. I guess I was thinking by assembling multiple penetrations onto one block it would reduce the overall penetration to one or two blocks that could be seamed. However it is now apparent that it isn't that simple. There has to be an approved assembly, either by a UL or ASTM approved product on the market or UL approved assembly.  Haven't found one yet.


Call Hilti, they'll get you a system and the documentation in a day or two.  

https://www.hilti.com/c/CLS_FIRESTOP_PROTECTION_7131/CLS_FIRESTOP_BLOCKS_PLUGS_CUSHIONS_7131/r5253


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 5, 2021)

redeyedfly said:


> I think your inspector is correct.  You are penetrating a rated floor assembly (which also probably doesn't meet the IIC requirements).  The penetration needs to be firestopped.  In commercial construction they "prerock" the areas where there are penetrations during rough-in.  Install enough gyp to make all your penetrations and firestop, then when you rock the rest of the room, you butt up to the prerocked area and tape the joint.
> 
> Approved plans form the city are no defense against code violations found later during construction.  Also, firestopping is rarely submitted for permit.  The contractor is responsible for getting all the penetration firestop designed and providing the inspector with the listed systems at the field inspection.
> 
> This inspector sounds like he's just doing his job.


I don't disagree here. The frustration I think the inspector, myself and the homeowner is having is the subjectivity as to what constitutes an adequate solution. We have discussed placing the manifold into a fire rated pull box flush mounted in the wall and running the plumbing through the top plates. We have discussed intumescent fire caulk. We have discussed gypx rock, etc. It will depend on what the homeowner and the inspector arrive at because I'm not eating this work when plans did not include a proper fire assembly :/


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 5, 2021)

It is typically the GC's responsibility to provide all the necessary firestopping; pipe penetrations are never on the plans w/ firestopping.  Inspector's don't provide solutions as a rule, they just tell you if they will accept your solution or not.  

Call Hilti.  This is not a difficult situation, pex pipes penetrate FRR assemblies every day.  

The gyp doesn't need to attach to the joists.  In fact, your assembly should probably have resilient channels to meet sound reqs.  You have a membrane penetration, the membrane is the gyp.  Now that you penetrated it you need to firestop it.


----------



## cda (Apr 5, 2021)

Group:::

Where is the rated assembly in all this??

None indicated on the approved plans???


----------



## e hilton (Apr 5, 2021)

cda said:


> That is a work of art,,, How could some one say disturb that???
> 
> The holes not not four times as big as you need them. The wood fit is pretty.


The problem that you might not see is that he intentionally set the 2x proud of the joist by 5/8” ... so the the face of that 2x will be flush with the face of the sheetrock.  My thought is ... move the 2x back so a piece of gwb can run continuous past it.


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 6, 2021)

> Hilti does not have a tested UL system that matches your conditions.  Please use this link to request an Engineering Judgement:


----------



## jakesktm (Apr 6, 2021)

I sent an email to Hilti and they do not have a tested UL system for this application. They didn't even have a solution. 

Personally I think it is a matter of opinion at this point as to what the inspector and we agree to.


----------



## tmurray (Apr 8, 2021)

The issue we are all seeing here is that everyone is being reactive instead of proactive. 

A proactive owner would have hired qualified consultants to clarify the fire separation requirements in the creation of the plans.

A proactive building official would have ensure that the fire separation requirements were detailed on the plans submitted for plan review.

I do have sympathy for the subtrades in this case, a proactive tradesperson would review the plans to verify the location and impact of any fire separations. 

So, where the owner and building official are not proactive, everyone gets screwed. 

The building official needs to own some of this issue and look at reasonable solutions that, while not meeting all of the code, meet the intent of the code without causing unreasonable hardship.

We recently had a case up here in Canada where the building official kept asking for things that were not detailed on the plans. Same kind of stuff as here, fire separations, emergency lighting, etc. All of it in the code. The issue is that when it went to court, the court found it was a violation of the reasonable expectation principle to levy additional works not specifically outlined as part of the application against the owner, where those works constitute a major portion of the proposed works. The municipality ended up paying for all of those items that the court would expect that a "reasonable" building official would have asked for plans of up front.


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 8, 2021)

tmurray said:


> The issue is that when it went to court, the court found it was a violation of the reasonable expectation principle to levy additional works not specifically outlined as part of the application against the owner, where those works constitute a major portion of the proposed works. The municipality ended up paying for all of those items that the court would expect that a "reasonable" building official would have asked for plans of up front.


Wow!  That would never happen in the US.


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 8, 2021)

jakesktm said:


> I sent an email to Hilti and they do not have a tested UL system for this application. They didn't even have a solution.
> 
> Personally I think it is a matter of opinion at this point as to what the inspector and we agree to.



I was looking at pex penetrating a 1hr floor/ceiling assy this morning.  Hilti firestop. 

The engineering judgment is what you want.  You should follow through, you would have had it in your hands by now.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 9, 2021)

*This is a Floor Ceiling, still looking for wall*


----------



## mark handler (Apr 9, 2021)

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1302803O/3m-fire-protection-products-specifiers-guide.pdf
		


I do not have the time to search through all the judgments but search this doc for "pex" there are over 100 judgment's, call them *(1-888-364-3577)*


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 9, 2021)

mark handler said:


> https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1302803O/3m-fire-protection-products-specifiers-guide.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have the time to search through all the judgements but search this doc for "pex" there are over 100 judgment's, call them *(1-888-364-3577)*


You don't have to search for judgments, the manufacturer will provide them.  Also EJs must be project specific.  So even if you found one you would need another issued for your project.


----------



## north star (Apr 10, 2021)

*# ~ # ~ #*

*In looking thru the pages of the 3-M resource provided
by **** Mark Handler ****, it appears to be multiple workable*
*solutions to this "multi-pex piping penetrations" conundrum.
From Pass Thru Devices, to using a fire rated caulking, to*
*using fire rated putty pads, to fire barrier blocks \ planks,
and more.*

*I too believe that the Inspector is correct is their*
*interpretation of the need for fire rated protection of the
pex piping penetrations........Just because the details for
such penetrations were not on the plans, is not his fault.

IMO, ...it is time to contact 3-M or another quality fire
stopping manufacturer and get their input........Their
recommendation for an approved fire stopping system
could be accepted by the AHJ........Provide all of the
documents to the AHJ and request that the recommended*
*fire stopping system be accepted, and move on......Remove
opinions from this problem and submit proven
documents that support the workability of a recommended
fire stopping system.

The pictured product is from STI.......It is the EZ Path Series
44+ Fire Rated Pathway.*





*This is only one solution.*

*FWIW, ...the homeowner will need to pay for this "required"
fire stopping.*

*# ~ # ~ #*


----------

