Replies

1. 
   john7g | Mar 31, 2009 10:25pm | #1

   If they rocked the bottom chord like it would be in a finished ceiling situation they'd have more time than that. 

2. 
   CardiacPaul | Mar 31, 2009 10:33pm | #2

   They ran a story like this in the Milwaukee market recently, I'm sure it has some merit but don't think I would let that be the deal breaker for me on I joist versue standard joist. I heard sometime back that trussed were bad in fires because the nail plates would "Pop" off when heated letting the truss fall apart, Boss Hog may be able to fill us in on that, Maybe a old wivestale.

   As far as I-joist being burned side by side with regular 2x stock, they did burn through faster.

   I can see this being more of a problem on first floor apps. where the joist are exposed from the bottom but not as nearly as big of a problem for 2nd. floor use when they are encased both above from floor sheathing & below from drywall.

   Maybe that is the answer,  A drywall basement ceilings code for I-joist

   Just my 2 cents

   I see John7q beat me too it.

    No one should regard themselve as "God's gift to man." But rather a mere man whos gifts are from God.

   ---

   Edited 3/31/2009 3:35 pm ET by CardiacPaul

   
   

   ---

   Edited 3/31/2009 3:35 pm ET by CardiacPaul

1. 
   john7g | Mar 31, 2009 11:57pm | #3

   you gotta type faster, man.  :)

   I tried to find the UL test report to see the real-deal on the conditions of the testing and results but it seems to be locked up in fire-proof safe somewhere and they ain't sharing. 

2. 
   BossHog | Apr 01, 2009 12:20am | #4

   The idea that truss plates pop off during a fire is total BS. But it's also a widely accepted idea.I did a thread a while back about trusses and fires if you're interested:http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=33149.1.The subject it a very heated one. (No pun intended) It's hard to have a civil discussion about it because it's an emotional issue.
   Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God [William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania]

1. 
   blownonfuel | Apr 01, 2009 12:35am | #5

   It's probably best just not to have a fire, seems that would solve a lot of problems.

2. 
   CardiacPaul | Apr 01, 2009 01:35am | #7

   I thought the plate deal was wrong thats why I mentioned you, our in house guy, thanks for responding & giving the link,

   I would think any plate that failed on a truss is only because the truss is gone.

   Thanks Boss No one should regard themselve as "God's gift to man." But rather a mere man whos gifts are from God.

3. 
   runnerguy | Apr 01, 2009 01:15am | #6

   The fire safety people are out of control. Fires are tragic of course but they're relatively rare events. I think the fire safety people won't be satisified until everything is made of concrete, stone, brick and block.

   Here in Anne Arundel county in Maryland the fire safety people jsut got a law passed where ALL new housing has to have sprinklers...to the tune of about 10K per house. Those with a well system it could be 15K with the holding tank and all. So much for affordable housing.

    

   Runnerguy

1. 
   BarryE | Apr 01, 2009 01:35am | #8

   "Here in Anne Arundel county in Maryland the fire safety people jsut got a law passed where ALL new housing has to have sprinklers...to the tune of about 10K per house. Those with a well system it could be 15K with the holding tank and all. So much for affordable housing." runner..that was mandated by the IRC, used in most states. Of course it's up to the local authorities rather to adopt it, but I think most will.Here in Central Iowa we met with our BI's and they have adopted it..also warned us that in the near future it would effect remodeling also.

   Barry E-Remodeler

    

1. 
   frammer52 | Apr 01, 2009 02:26am | #9

   ..also warned us that in the near future it would effect remodeling also.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

   A little out of control????

1. 
   BarryE | Apr 01, 2009 02:57am | #10

   You can thank the Fire Sprinkler Coalition ...they managed to push it through the Minneapolis IRC Code Hearings.Our local BI's weren't even thrilled about it

   Barry E-Remodeler

    

1. 
   frammer52 | Apr 01, 2009 03:24am | #13

   I saw that, but thought that was pretty much limited to new construction.

2. 
   BarryE | Apr 01, 2009 03:37am | #15

   It is for now... the code only addresses new construction, but according to our local officials, jurisdictions can make modifications that could require sprinklers in remodeling projects.I think in some jurisdictions they can require sprinklers based on % of house being remodeled. The local's here seem to think it's a matter of time.

   Barry E-Remodeler

    

3. 
   frammer52 | Apr 01, 2009 03:43am | #16

   Might be.

    

   When do these agencies think that we have had enough?

   It is rudiculous that we have sprinklers in most houses, with the possible exception of houses built in areas that have a high possibilty of fire.

4. 
   BarryE | Apr 01, 2009 03:59am | #17

   "When do these agencies think that we have had enough?"When we live in padded cubes with no stairs, windows or heat source?

   Barry E-Remodeler

    

2. 
   runnerguy | Apr 01, 2009 03:06am | #11

   The problem with the code people is there's always a second leading cause of death. There'll always be something out there that they think needs tightening.

   For years the code people weren't happy with the 8.25" risers and 9" treads. Wanted to go 7" and 11" (same as commercial stairs). Finally got in 7.75" and 10" but 7" and 11" is still the hoped for. But who cares if it adds 2' to a stair run, there's always a second leading cause of death.

   It's code writing run amok.

   Runnerguy

1. 
   BarryE | Apr 01, 2009 03:19am | #12

   What with those codes and the newer window codes, among others, gotta wonder what a "safe" house in 20 years will look like

   Barry E-Remodeler

    

2. 
   john7g | Apr 01, 2009 03:26am | #14

   more steps = greater amount of time on the stairs = longer risk exposure to falling down the stairs

    

   :)

1. 
   DaveRicheson | Apr 01, 2009 02:39pm | #25

   I think the statistic use to be that 90+% of all falls on steps occur on the first two steps, either top or bottom, whether going up or down.

   Maybe if we leave those out, steps will be safer <G>

2. 
   runnerguy | Apr 01, 2009 06:34pm | #30

   "Maybe if we leave those out, steps will be safer <G>"

   ROTFLMAO!!

   Runnerguy

2. 
   mikerooney | Apr 01, 2009 04:10am | #18

   You can bet the ins. co.'s are behind that.Prince George's County.

   My truth does not need to be corroborated by your ignorance.
   - Dick Gregory

1. 
   john7g | Apr 01, 2009 04:13am | #19

   and I wonder if the ins comp.s are ready for the water damage from legit triggering of the system as well as accidental...

1. 
   mikerooney | Apr 01, 2009 05:31am | #21

   That's nothin' compared to burn unit/loss of life.

   My truth does not need to be corroborated by your ignorance.
   - Dick Gregory

1. 
   john7g | Apr 01, 2009 01:52pm | #24

   not argueing that point, just wondering how the ins co.'s will handle damage that's sim to flood when there was no flood other than the firext system. 

2. 
   DaveRicheson | Apr 01, 2009 03:08pm | #26

   Residential sprinkler system are not whole house protection. It is only installed in high risk areas. It should also have a flow activated alarm installed with it, although I don't know if it is a requirement.

   Insurance companies have resisted residential sprinlker systems for years. The water damage argument had long been thier standard counter for code changes that would require sprinklers. When I ask,years ago, about HO insurance discounts for a sprinkler sytem, I got that same song about water damage. I also learned that my state did not require them to give discounts for sprinkler installs, but a neighboring  state (IN) does.

   Take a look at this: http://www.prnewswire.com.au/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-21-2008/0004889250&EDATE

   While I agree with you that you can't build an idiot proof house, neither can you ignore the consequences of building with newer engineered building products.

3. 
   john7g | Apr 01, 2009 03:17pm | #27

   >...only installed in high risk areas.<

   where'd you learn that?  I've only been able to find the backslapping articles like you posted with nothing on the details, or what might be the details of the new code. 

4. 
   shtrum | Apr 01, 2009 04:30am | #20

   i'd imagine by the time a fire gets to the point of structural failure, the smoke would be a bigger factor.  Unfortunately, anybody still inside would already be affected.

   Interesting what the fire marshal said about new homes burning hotter.  Learned a long time ago that larger wood beams (i.e., older construction) char on the outside, and the char actually helps insulate them from further damage.  Which would help explain why I-joists don't fare as well.

    

1. 
   ponytl | Apr 01, 2009 05:48am | #22

   i think it has alot to do with old growth wood being more dense maybe...   make'n it harder to burn vs new fast grown very soft wood... almost like paper... rots fast too...

   old big beam  buildings have good fire rating because it takes forever to burn through a  heart pine 12x16...

   always follow the money... it's usually insurance co's behind most codes

   p

1. 
   Davo304 | Apr 01, 2009 07:58am | #23

   With engineered lumber, whadda ya got?... a lot of wood chips glued together. It's the glue that causes it to burn up so fast. I personally like regular 2x joists better, but engineered lumber do have some talents.

   I remember back  in 97 standing outside in the cold winter hovering around a trash can fire. ( My company was out on strike at the time). You know what we used to start that fire? We opened up a tube of Liquid Nails construction adhesive. Whenever we felt the urge for a little extra heat, we tossed in some OSB scraps...it burned great! Way better than the 2x scraps we normally fed it.

    

   Davo 

2. 
   doorboy | Apr 01, 2009 06:29pm | #28

   You're right about smoke being a bigger factor that flames in a burning building. However, the danger to the firefighter--who usually has a breathing apparatus--is the burning materials. In this conversation it's the joists. I've seen reports where the firefighters refer to the I-beam joists as "widowmakers"
   It seems to me that the testing labs(UL) have more influence on the building codes than the firefighters do.

1. 
   frammer52 | Apr 01, 2009 06:32pm | #29

   It seems to me that the testing labs(UL) have more influence on the building codes than the firefighters do>>>>>>>>>>>>

   That statement makes no sense if you have been following the posts.  The latest code revisions were highly affected by the firefighter lobby.  To the extent that they included a provision to require ALL new construction to have sprinklers.

   This has caused a lively debate over at JLC.

1. 
   shtrum | Apr 01, 2009 07:00pm | #31

   A fire chief gets taken pretty seriously here.  They can override a building inspector/job site if they see a need.  Can create a lot of bad publicity/politics if it's abused, though. 

   Used to work with a part-time fireman.  He said the current spray-on ratings for structural steel was a joke, despite numerous tests and industry standards.  My impression is that those on the fire rescue side will always want more done.  But then again, they see the worst of it.

    

1. 
   frammer52 | Apr 01, 2009 07:08pm | #32

   The problem is the cost benefit ratio.  They have pushed this through without using numbers, just feal good we don't want people to die.  Personnaly I think that it might be less expensive to require all materials to be fire retarded or proof. 

   I think that reason has lost out in this case!

2. 
   doorboy | Apr 01, 2009 07:53pm | #33

   My thoughts as I read through the posts is that the UL people seem to think that the engineered I-joists were acceptable--which is probably true from the standpoint of people escaping a burning building.
   But the firefighters, on the other hand, are taking a greater risk upon entering a building that has been burning for a while already. UL seems to think that re-training the firefighters to deal with the I-joist is adequate.
   I would think that the firefighters should have a little MORE influence in this matter.

1. 
   frammer52 | Apr 01, 2009 08:03pm | #34

   You are rejecting out of hand the analysis done .  Try a cost benefit ratio before making sweeping statements.  Firefighters have a roll, but not to the exclusion of whether it is feasible.  Quite frankly, this view is part of the reason that building houses has become as expensive as it has.

2. 
   doorboy | Apr 01, 2009 08:28pm | #35

   Slow down frammer. I'm not rejecting anything, and I don't know what 'view' you're referring to.
   I AGREE with you that codes and regulations are driving up the cost of building. I personally DON'T like the idea of sprinklered houses as a requirement. My only point here is that the I-joists, while good for the overall cost of a building, may have a higher cost in the event of a fire-related tragedy.(as unlikely as that is)
   In my opinion, we are definitely over-governed and over-regulated. And the IBC and the testing labs are largely to blame.
   Peace.