We are looking at spray foam and whether we will be able to use it without an ignition barrier in crawlspaces or attics. The initial opinion is not unless it meets ASTM E 84 with less than 25 flame spread and 450 smoke density. Meaning, only fire retardent foams will be permitted unless you want to spend the money on ignition barriers. Have you had any code enforcement officials enforcing this yet? How are you dealing with this issue? Do you use any foam on ductwork in unconditioned spaces.

Views: 594

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I would recommend you check this post/blog out http://homeenergypros.lbl.gov/profiles/blogs/codes-ignition-barrier... to get a better handle on the who, what, when, options, etc...

With that said, I don't know of any in my area that check much less enforce it 

Thanks for the links. It appears that they come to the same conclusion. We are in SW VA and here several inspections departments are enforcing this code.

I do not have a full cavity foaming rig, but when I do I sub the work out to a subcontractor.  He carries a full cavity open cell spray foam product that is fire rated and does not need to have an ignition barrier on it.  The product is Gaco Firestop I can not say that i am an expert in it but i have used it a few times in areas where the homeowner was not interested in dry walling and finishing the space.  It cost a little more than common open celled spray foams but the lack of need to spend days on the site easily makes up for that.

Watch out for thermal barrier requirements in addition to your ignition barrier concerns. If a crawlspace is open or has access to a basement their may be code enforcement issues with some crawlspaces. To deal with this the choice is to not use foam or make sure there is a thermal barrier seperating the basement and crawlspace. Some foam does get used on ductwork but it must be the fire rated formula. The fire rated stuff looks identical to the standard foam most use. You would need to get your hands on the technical data sheet (easy to find online). Similar foam but slightly different density, R value and cost. Hope that helps you.

When we use this product we place a laminated technical data sheet in the given area and give the home owner a copy to keep with their receipt to show any one that may ask what the product is and that it does not need to be covered with a fire barrier.  It can be deceptive and when with out the data sheets there would be no way to know that the foam is fire rated.

Cory is right, watch out for thermal barrier requirements as well.  In it's simplest form if you can walk up to it on any given day it will require a thermal barrier.  if it is harder to get to you will need an ignition barrier.  The FS /SD numbers from the E-85 teat are not enough.  Foam plastic has it's own section in the IRC.

Thanks. The foam plastic section of the IRC 2009 code has specific exemptions for attics and crawlspaces that allows the ASTM E-85 qualified foams to be sprayed without a thermal or ignition barrier, as long as the spaces are not accessed for any reason other than equipment maintenance and they require an access point by IRC code.

HOWEVER...It really all comes down to the individual inspectors interpretation. This is how our local inspectors are interpreting it in one county but not in the next one over, so to be safe most contractors are spraying an ignition barrier on all spray foam products now, which continues to drive up the cost of the quality contractors work

I do like the thermal barrier qualifier you noted, that really simplifies it when you are teaching this section. If you can walk up to it, then yes to the thermal barrier. Thanks!

Caleb,

The E-84 only test has was removed from the IRC between the 2003 & 2006 code cycle.  The exceptions you are speaking of are for THERMAL barriers not ignition!  You need an ignition barrier unless the specific foam you are using has passed either the NFPA 286, FM 4880, UL 1040, UL 723 or UL 1715 test.  NOT E-84.  This test (corner crib) has been modified in AC 377 for ignition barrier only.    Other than passing one of these tests the foam must be covered by at minimum a ignition barrier.  Please read IRC 2009 R316.5.3 & R316316.5.4  Both section require attics or crawl spaces with limited access to be protected by an ignition barrier.

The only true exception is for sill plates and headers IRC R316.5.11

I do not see how this could be "interpreted" any other way that written.

RSS

Home Energy Pros

Home Energy Pros was founded by the developers of Home Energy Saver Pro (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,) and brought to you in partnership with Home Energy magazine.

Latest Activity

Jim Gunshinan commented on Jim Gunshinan's blog post Energy Upgrade California—Up Close and Personal
"I had a revelation while attending Bruce Manclark's session of duct leak testing at the Energy…"
2 hours ago
George J. Nesbitt commented on Jim Gunshinan's blog post Energy Upgrade California—Up Close and Personal
"Blower Door; the 2007 test was a depressurization test, and the 2014 a pressurization test, which…"
2 hours ago
George J. Nesbitt replied to Kaushal Bharath Raju's discussion Affordability & Deep Energy Upgrade/Passive House Retrofit in Berkeley, California.
"Plan, plan, plan, plan. The 1st step to is to understand the house, how it's built, the…"
2 hours ago
George J. Nesbitt posted an event

High Performance Windows - A Panel of Experts at Pyramid Alehouse`

April 26, 2014 from 3pm to 5pm
Join a lively panel discussion on high performance windows. We'll cover some basics, as well as…See More
3 hours ago
Kaushal Bharath Raju replied to Kaushal Bharath Raju's discussion Affordability & Deep Energy Upgrade/Passive House Retrofit in Berkeley, California.
"Hi David, Thanks for pointing out Martin Holiday's article. I do not wish to engage in the…"
3 hours ago
Profile IconAdam Penberthy, Scot Davidson and j jarvella joined Home Energy Pros
3 hours ago
David Eakin replied to Kaushal Bharath Raju's discussion Affordability & Deep Energy Upgrade/Passive House Retrofit in Berkeley, California.
"More food for thought on this subject - read this (fairly) recent blog by one of the most respected…"
9 hours ago
Curt Kinder commented on Christopher Morin's blog post 5 Things New Energy Efficiency HVAC Contractors Need to Know
"You left out air distribution...Without at least a passing glance at how much air moves through the…"
14 hours ago
David Eakin replied to Kaushal Bharath Raju's discussion Affordability & Deep Energy Upgrade/Passive House Retrofit in Berkeley, California.
"I mis-spoke - I was referring to the Midori House in Santa Cruz. Have an in-depth discussion with…"
20 hours ago
Kaushal Bharath Raju replied to Kaushal Bharath Raju's discussion Affordability & Deep Energy Upgrade/Passive House Retrofit in Berkeley, California.
"Hi David & Bud, $400/sqf > $300 sqf. The latter is the minimum cost of new construction in…"
yesterday
David Eakin replied to Kaushal Bharath Raju's discussion Affordability & Deep Energy Upgrade/Passive House Retrofit in Berkeley, California.
"Kaushal, There was a deep energy retrofit upgrade project (to Passive House standards) in San Jose…"
yesterday
Kim Tanner updated an event

Beyond Residential Testing at The Energy Conservatory

May 14, 2014 to May 16, 2014
The Energy Conservatory (TEC) is hosting a Beyond Residential Testing event. In addition we are…See More
yesterday

© 2014   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service