# Inspector wants firestopping on PEX penetrations



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

1 hr rated ceiling - not yet drywalled - I used a 2x6" block between ceiling joists with a 5/8" drop to meet flush with the drywall. I planned to caulk w intumescent fire sealant around the edge.

Inspector doesn't like it :/

i can't install the pex manifold in the wall. This is a utility room with manifolds on the wall. Ceiling penetration is the only option.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

You're answer on this is to find a listed assembly for all that. I don't know if such a thing exists. The alternative is a rating calculated and stamped by an engineer. They may say an intumescent coating will do the trick, I don't know.


----------



## greg24k (May 19, 2007)

Ask him if this would work Rated for 1 and 2 Hr


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

hdavis said:


> You're answer on this is to find a listed assembly for all that. I don't know if such a thing exists. The alternative is a rating calculated and stamped by an engineer. They may say an intumescent coating will do the trick, I don't know.


Can't find anything for this. Maybe build a cinder block wall and ceiling around the entire manifold 😂


----------



## Mesilla Valley (Jun 10, 2020)

Could it be boxed in for and extra layer of 5/8, filled with fire rated mineral wool or foam. Maybe run those by him. Just a thought. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Half-fast Eddie (Aug 21, 2020)

Why doesn’t the inspector like it? Did he give you a code section that backs up his position?


----------



## Seven-Delta-FortyOne (Mar 5, 2011)

Is it the blocking, or the actual penetration, that is failing?

I assume it’s not the pex. I believe pex has a 3 hour rating.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Maybe 3M FIP 1 would work for this.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I'd guess it's the actual penetration that he's failing.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

With the blocking flush with the surface if the drywall, the block is a penetration. The whole penetration (block and PEX) has to meet the one hour rating. Whatever you use has to be listed for that application.


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

hdavis said:


> With the blocking flush with the surface if the drywall, the block is a penetration. The whole penetration (block and PEX) has to meet the one hour rating. Whatever you use has to be listed for that application.


I think you might be right, although the inspector is not sure himself tbh. At first he suggested 1/2" copper section through the block double ended with sharkbite fittings / which tells me he has a problem with the PEX being combustible. Pex has a 3-hr fire rating per ASTM E119. 

Personally I think double ending copper tubing with sharkbites is a stupid idea that literally solves nothing, but didn't argue. I asked what the issue was and he said he would "have to look it up." 

We are in California where we have ridiculous codes on firestop. But I cannot find anything outside of combustable vs. non combustable and firestop requirements.


----------



## Pounder (Nov 28, 2020)

Isn't the issue that the block isn't covered by drywall? I also question the one hour rating of a single layer of 5/8 type X drywall. 
Also, are all of those pipes exposed? If they're enclosed in a wall it should be simple to achieve your 1 hour rating.


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

Pounder said:


> Isn't the issue that the block isn't covered by drywall? I also question the one hour rating of a single layer of 5/8 type X drywall.


The plans specify a 1hr ceiling as being 5/8" gypsum. I've always been skeptical but it's a UL rated assembly. 

The issue is firestopping the penetration. That is what I am trying to research. I've never had this problem before.


----------



## Pounder (Nov 28, 2020)

Jakesktm said:


> The plans specify a 1hr ceiling as being 5/8" gypsum. I've always been skeptical but it's a UL rated assembly.
> 
> The issue is firestopping the penetration. That is what I am trying to research. I've never had this problem before.


"Assembly" is the key term. I went through this on an ADU a couple years back. One layer of 5/8 board isn't a one hour assembly. I found all the specs on the USG website, showed the inspector, and he agreed that what was called out as a one hour ceiling wasn't a one hour rated assembly, even though the plans referred to it as such.


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

Pounder said:


> "Assembly" is the key term. I went through this on an ADU a couple years back. One layer of 5/8 board isn't a one hour assembly. I found all the specs on the USG website, showed the inspector, and he agreed that what was called out as a one hour ceiling wasn't a one hour rated assembly, even though the plans referred to it as such.


What did the inspector do?

Here's the detail / sounds similar to yours










gotta love generic details:/

also the plumbing code (in CA) says the firestop at plumbing penetrations has to be detailed in plans prior to approval by the city...... that of course never happened.


----------



## Pounder (Nov 28, 2020)

Jakesktm said:


> What did the inspector do?
> 
> Here's the detail / sounds similar to yours
> 
> ...


He accepted it as drawn without the necessity of following the requirements of a one hour assembly.
The detail you posted isn't a one hour assembly. It needs 2 layers of 5/8 type X to have a one hour rating. The details are available on line.


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

Pounder said:


> He accepted it as drawn without the necessity of following the requirements of a one hour assembly.
> The detail you posted isn't a one hour assembly. It needs 2 layers of 5/8 type X to have a one hour rating. The details are available on line.


Isn't there two layers? I see one layer of gypsum and then resilient channels below that. I assume the resilient channels carry a second layer. But no specs on firestop:/

This is the homeowner's problem but in the meantime I need inspector to understand that absent a specific code on how to firestop a penetration and absent an approved assembly or firestop product there is nothing else I can do.

I will make the block flush with the bottom of the joist and leave it at that? At least the let's me off the hook for an "assembly." Beyond that I am at a loss.


----------



## Silverdaledev (Mar 28, 2021)

I will start by saying I am neither a plumber or from Cali. Lol.
I frame townhouses, which require some understanding of fire rating. 
To me it would seem that a simple solution would be to pull the pex, drywall the blocking with 5/8" type X so all drywall abutting it can be fire taped at drywall stage. I believe ⅝ with solid wood backing is rated for 1 hr. 

Good luck


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

For the sake of discussion, could one slip in some drywall pieces and mud the gaps? Then some firestop caulk to dress it up. Just wondering.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

MarkJames said:


> For the sake of discussion, could one slip in some drywall pieces and mud the gaps? Then some firestop caulk to dress it up. Just wondering.


Not if the inspector is by the book.


----------



## JonM (Nov 1, 2007)

LINK Can't you just foam it?


----------



## Half-fast Eddie (Aug 21, 2020)

JonM said:


> LINK Can't you just foam it?


That product might work. 

This Great Stuff foam does not meet fire blocking code in spite of the name. Building inspectors will fail it.


----------



## Kingcarpenter1 (May 5, 2020)

Raise your block 1 1/4” & chase the entire box w/double 5/8 & fire rated caulk. Dunno, my B.I. wouldn’t fly that kite. How many manifolds have you seen come out of lid?

Mike


----------



## Kingcarpenter1 (May 5, 2020)

Double 5/8 on top of 2x box I mean. What else can you do

Mike


----------



## JustAdummy (Nov 29, 2019)

Jakesktm said:


> 1 hr rated ceiling - not yet drywalled - I used a 2x6" block between ceiling joists with a 5/8" drop to meet flush with the drywall. I planned to caulk w intumescent fire sealant around the edge.
> 
> Inspector doesn't like it :/
> 
> ...


Why didn't you just use a metal sleeve gilled with 


Jakesktm said:


> 1 hr rated ceiling - not yet drywalled - I used a 2x6" block between ceiling joists with a 5/8" drop to meet flush with the drywall. I planned to caulk w intumescent fire sealant around the edge.
> 
> Inspector doesn't like it :/
> 
> ...


why didn't you just use a metal data tray filled with Rockwool? Easy thing.


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

JustAdummy said:


> Why didn't you just use a metal sleeve gilled with
> 
> why didn't you just use a metal data tray filled with Rockwool? Easy thing.


Can you show me an assembly or application?


----------



## JustAdummy (Nov 29, 2019)

Jakesktm said:


> Can you show me an assembly or application?


It will be a Transformation from NFPA 221 fire wall data penetrations.


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

I get what you are suggesting. The problem seems to be in application. There is no known assembly for this application. There is no product that is tested/engineered for this application (pex penetration of a 1 hr wall). Anything and everything is a hack of other products and assemblies. What we do know: Pex is rated ASTM E119 for up to 3-hour assemblies. Where is there an "assembly"? There is not a UL assembly that exists as far as I can tell, so it really is up to the interpretation of the inspector. I have offered to do two sheets of 5/8" gypsum and he said no. He is "researching" it. In the meantime my client has no water in his downstairs unit because of this apparent loophole in the code. Since the ceiling AND wall are both 1 hour walls, it makes no difference if I penetrate vertically or horizontally.

Personally, I think the fire rating situation for residential is making jobs like this cost prohibitive. All of the products resulting from NFPA 221 appear to be of a commercial nature. I mean seriously who runs 20 data cables through a residential firewall?

I am inclined to pull all the PEX and run steel pipe like we did in 1962 and avoid using pex moving forward. I think the pex manufacturers need to start contributing to the solution or you will see more avoidance of it in the future.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Looks like what Greg posted should work okay. Here's a couple of details, one of them addresses non-metallic pipe which is probably technically what PEX is, the other one is for a 1 hour floor with a 50 IIC rating (impact noise). This is required between units per the IRC/IBC, that's the hard one. For the floor the two layers of 5/8" ply work for the fire and the carpet and pad is for the impact sound. It has an exception for kitchens and bathrooms. That detail is from the city of Los Angeles. They have their own set of standards that are really difficult and are usually accepted by other AHJs.

The hat channel shown on the details on the thread are for sound, generally 1 hour is 1 layer 5/8" Type 'X' on each side or stucco.

Here's a link to the Specseal website for the non-metallic pipe detail. 
Home | STI Firestop


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

Rio said:


> Looks like what Greg posted should work okay. Here's a couple of details, one of them addresses non-metallic pipe which is probably technically what PEX is, the other one is for a 1 hour floor with a 50 IIC rating (impact noise). This is required between units per the IRC/IBC, that's the hard one. For the floor the two layers of 5/8" ply work for the fire and the carpet and pad is for the impact sound. It has an exception for kitchens and bathrooms. That detail is from the city of Los Angeles. They have their own set of standards that are really difficult and are usually accepted by other AHJs.
> 
> The hat channel shown on the details on the thread are for sound, generally 1 hour is 1 layer 5/8" Type 'X' on each side or stucco.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I will try and get the inspector to buy off on this. I suggested intumescent caulking from the get go. The inspector wants to win the problem solving sprint.


----------



## Half-fast Eddie (Aug 21, 2020)

Did he ever give a section number in the code to support his position?


----------



## Jakesktm (Mar 27, 2021)

Half-fast Eddie said:


> Did he ever give a section number in the code to support his position?


Nope..... He said he will look at it and get back to me. That was Friday. This week I am on another job. The homeowner was notified and he is ok for now. But I will need an answer so I can plan finish work here.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I didn't look to far, but the closest I could find allows multiple PEX pipes through a ceiling hole no larger than 2 1/2", I believe.

It's p485 of the 3M Fire Protection Products Applicator and Specified Guide.

I came at this from the 3M end, but if you come at it from the PEX end, they may have their own detail. It takes some digging to find the detail you want.


----------



## Redeyedfly (Sep 20, 2016)

You have a 1hr floor ceiling assembly separating units, correct?

There are many listed assemblies for 1hr wood joist floors. The assy on your drawing does not match any listed assemblies I am aware of. You would need an additional layer of gyp, solid wood flooring above, or insulation in the joist bays. UL lists many, GA lists many but you need to to match the assembly exactly. 
But that isn't the question. 

You need a 1hr floor/ceiling assembly because of R302.3 (2018 IRC). Membrane penetrations of that rated assembly are covered in R302.4.2; that sends you to R302.4.1 which lists two ways for your penetrations to comply. Some listed fire rated assemblies include penetrations, but not many and they're never for pipes; usually for exhaust fans or radiation dampers. So you need the second option which is a listed firestop system. Fire caulk is a product used in firestop systems, not a system itself. Do what all the commercial contractors do, call Hilti or 3M (Hilti offers the most support) and tell them your situation. They either have a listed firestop system for the application (very likely) or they will provide you an engineering judgement with a system. 

I'd bet a dollar the system is filling the annular space around the pipe penetration with fire caulk. You may need to remove the wood block. I see the intent but it isn't part of the listed assembly. you could argue the char rate of the wood meets one hour. 1 1/2"/hr is the char rate for SPF framing lumber.

Also find a new architect. Code is the architect's responsibility for the floor assembly. It is the GC's responsibility to provide listed firestop systems for every penetration of a rated assembly. While you're in the code you should also read all the exceptions in R302.4.2. Most of them are for electrical boxes, which I assume you have a few of in your rated ceiling.

Firestop Design Center - Hilti USA


----------



## GCTony (Oct 26, 2012)

One layer of 5/8" and sometimes even 1/2" Type X can be PART OF a hour hour assembly. See the USG SA100, GWB along has no real time rating. I think you have one of the UL 500 series assemblies. 

I think what the inspector is looking for is sleeve seals because you are penetrating a rated assembly. Something like this Firestop Sleeves & Pathways - Hilti USA The gang plates may work but not sure they can be used with plastic lines. 

I personally would be asking the Architect to submit a clarification to the city. Fire stop details are suppose to be (required in most areas) on the documents submitted for the building permit


----------



## rltomkinson (Aug 6, 2011)

Speak to the Rep for the firestop manufacturer. They can usually provide you with a drawing and product for a listed assembly. You can also go to UL's website and look for yourself but it can take a while to get used to. I've done this in the past for electrical projects that I was on.


----------



## Redeyedfly (Sep 20, 2016)

GCTony said:


> One layer of 5/8" and sometimes even 1/2" Type X can be PART OF a hour hour assembly. See the USG SA100, GWB along has no real time rating. I think you have one of the UL 500 series assemblies.
> 
> I think what the inspector is looking for is sleeve seals because you are penetrating a rated assembly. Something like this Firestop Sleeves & Pathways - Hilti USA The gang plates may work but not sure they can be used with plastic lines.
> 
> I personally would be asking the Architect to submit a clarification to the city. Fire stop details are suppose to be (required in most areas) on the documents submitted for the building permit


5/8" Type X is rated for 40 min per 2018 IBC TABLE 722.6.2(1) in a calculated assy.

Architects do not design firestop systems. They provide the listed assembly, the GC provides the appropriate firestop system for any penetrations of the FRR assy.


----------



## philip1519 (Oct 27, 2015)

What you need is a rated shaft. Don't worry about what some say about 5/8 type X, the inspector will accept it. The shaft will begin at the floor level, and continue up till the PEX has exited the shaft. to maintain the rating, no lumber can ever be left exposed. At the joist level, dry wall and tape the floor sheathing and the sides of the joist below the framed shaft on the second floor. On the second floor, three sides of the shaft need to be drywalled and light weight gypcrete poured around the PEX onto the floor sheathing (pre-plate the fourth wall to make a dam). If you can, make the fourth wall free of penetrations. Create your penetrations and fire caulk. When there are no more penetrations to be made dry wall the ceiling at the final level and (after MEPS) fire caulk the fourth walls and stand them. it is best to frame the shaft walls full height to the bottom of sheathing instead of having to deal with your joist layout. if you have to go into an attic space you will need to construct your shaft up through the ceiling joist and cap with ply wood drywalled on both sides, then complete your final penetrations.


----------



## Redeyedfly (Sep 20, 2016)

philip1519 said:


> What you need is a rated shaft. Don't worry about what some say about 5/8 type X, the inspector will accept it. The shaft will begin at the floor level, and continue up till the PEX has exited the shaft. to maintain the rating, no lumber can ever be left exposed. At the joist level, dry wall and tape the floor sheathing and the sides of the joist below the framed shaft on the second floor. On the second floor, three sides of the shaft need to be drywalled and light weight gypcrete poured around the PEX onto the floor sheathing (pre-plate the fourth wall to make a dam). If you can, make the fourth wall free of penetrations. Create your penetrations and fire caulk. When there are no more penetrations to be made dry wall the ceiling at the final level and (after MEPS) fire caulk the fourth walls and stand them. it is best to frame the shaft walls full height to the bottom of sheathing instead of having to deal with your joist layout. if you have to go into an attic space you will need to construct your shaft up through the ceiling joist and cap with ply wood drywalled on both sides, then complete your final penetrations.


This is the worst advice I have ever seen. 

There are no shafts in IRC construction. This wouldn't even require a shaft in IBC Type I construction. Lumber can be exposed in shafts, it depends on the listed assembly. There are no gypcrete firestop systems. Fire caulk is not a firestop system. 

You've somehow taken a simple membrane penetration and turned it into a rated shaft. You further demonstrated you have absolutely no idea how fire rated assemblies work in code. It sounds like you are a drywaller who does what your lead says but you have never once opened the code and have no understanding of how it works and why you're doing all the things you're doing.


----------



## Half-fast Eddie (Aug 21, 2020)

Redeyedfly said:


> This is the worst advice I have ever seen.


No, there has been a whole lot worse on this forum. I suspect that philip is giving a commercial answer.


----------



## Ed Corrigan (Jul 18, 2019)

Half-fast Eddie said:


> No, there has been a whole lot worse on this forum. I suspect that redeye is giving a commercial answer.




I got no pony in this race, but...


----------



## Redeyedfly (Sep 20, 2016)

Half-fast Eddie said:


> No, there has been a whole lot worse on this forum. I suspect that philip is giving a commercial answer.


HAHA

He's not even right for commercial.


----------



## Redeyedfly (Sep 20, 2016)

Ed Corrigan said:


> I got no pony in this race, but...


The IBC and IRC code sections about membrane and through penetrations of FRR assemblies are identical.


----------



## Ed Corrigan (Jul 18, 2019)

Redeyedfly said:


> The IBC and IRC code sections about membrane and through penetrations of FRR assemblies are identical.


Eh..., just throw a little type s an a few bricks up in there.

It'll be FINE...

What's a dum brickie know, lol!!!


----------



## philip1519 (Oct 27, 2015)

Well, I work on mostly type III buildings and there are shafts, I assure you. Lumber *cannot *be exposed in the type of shaft that I described. Lightweight *has *been allowed to flow into rated shafts and I never suggested that fire caulk was a *system*. But I may have over thought this one. You are right about one thing though, I do not *know* the code that applies, but I have framed this type of shaft and the drywallers took over from there. It has been mentioned that the architect should provide the assembly and I have never done a job where this was not the case. 

Kingframer has already made the best suggestion to get the inspector to pass it.

It seems that this post has turned mainly into a discussion and I was anxious to join in. As I said, I do not know the code that applies but I usually have professionally drawn plans in very large California low-rise podium framing, examples of my work can be found in large cities from San Francisco to San Diego and east to Las Vegas. Your judgement of my expertise is flawed, just like my advice.


----------



## Redeyedfly (Sep 20, 2016)

philip1519 said:


> Well, I work on mostly type III buildings and there are shafts, I assure you. Lumber *cannot *be exposed in the type of shaft that I described. Lightweight *has *been allowed to flow into rated shafts and I never suggested that fire caulk was a *system*. But I may have over thought this one. You are right about one thing though, I do not *know* the code that applies, but I have framed this type of shaft and the drywallers took over from there. It has been mentioned that the architect should provide the assembly and I have never done a job where this was not the case.
> 
> Kingframer has already made the best suggestion to get the inspector to pass it.
> 
> It seems that this post has turned mainly into a discussion and I was anxious to join in. As I said, I do not know the code that applies but I usually have professionally drawn plans in very large California low-rise podium framing, examples of my work can be found in large cities from San Francisco to San Diego and east to Las Vegas. Your judgement of my expertise is flawed, just like my advice.


Type III is in IBC, not IRC. Still no shafts in IRC. 
You're confusing a FRR assembly with a listed firestop system that is designed for penetrations in a FRR assembly. Two different things. The former is designed by the architect, the latter by the GC.
You can have gypcrete in a shaft I guess, except floors cannot continue through shafts, so it could only be at the bottom of the shaft and it would serve no purpose. 
You suggested he seal the penetrations with fire caulk, that implies that the caulk is a firestop system. It's not, but the system may well be simple fire caulking around the pipes. You still need a listed system for the inspector that says the specific pipe penetrating a specific assembly shall be fire caulked with a specific brand and type of fire caulk around the pipes. 
The plumbing sub would assemble the firestop submittal for their piping and the FRR assemblies they are penetrating. On a typical 5 over 1 podium the submittal is the size of a phone book. 

Sounds like my judgement was nearly spot on. I was thinking non-combustible where the drywallers do the steel stud framing also.


----------



## philip1519 (Oct 27, 2015)

Alright, judgey. Gotta go, it's uncomfortable in here what with all the hot air.


----------

