Thread: Great stuff foam

I am running wires for an alarm installation in a new construction.I forgot to bring the "great stuff" foam to fill the holes, so I went to walmart to get a can.Walmart had another brand that was labeled " Fire resistant" so I got it.It's a red foam. I have never seen it at Lowes before and have never seen it used on any construction site either.QuestionIs regular " Great Stuff" foam, fire resistant? (I looked on the web site (Dow) and could not find anything.)Is it required (by code) for the foam to be fire resistant? If it is required, have any of you seen anyone (electricians, plumbers...) use it?

Similar Threads:

• White stuff on soil
• Black stuff on a wall.
• Great new look
• Great New Look!
• The new board looks great

Usually the red stuff is fire proof. I'm not at work so I can't get you the information on it. But yes there are areas where any penetration through top plates are required to be "fire caulked".

If no one else answers you before I get back to work on Monday I'll look up the information I have on it!

Here is some further info.

Dow Chemical Co. 306179 Great Stuff Fireblock Foam Sealant

Dow Chemical Co. 306179 Great Stuff Fireblock Foam Sealant

Dow Introduces Great Stuff™ Fireblock Insulating Foam Sealant to Resist the Passage of Flame and Smoke in Homes
http://www.ebuild.com/articles/762174.hwx

Fire penetration sealant come in spray foam, "caulking" tube, powder (to be mixed with water) and ready to use in cans.

In flat areas, where there is just a hole in the gypsum board, a laminated gypsum patch will suffice. Around changes of construction, like from a pipe to gypsum, or ductwork to gypsum is where you will see the sealer.

In many building, where there are fire/smoke zones, any penetrations through the walls or floors/ceilings must be sealed. Causes of penetrations can be due to new construction or retrofitting. Items like wires, HVAC ducts, pipes... or anything can cause a penetration.

If you ever have the oppertunity to look above an acoustical ceiling in a hospital, you will most probably see the stuff. (only walls that define a smoke/fire zone)

Not all sealant material is acceptable in all locations. Usually, the facility supervisor will specify the rating needed.

In New York, periodically, the Joint Commission inspects each hospital. They look at everything from procedures to the condition of the building. One of their pet peeves is fire stopping.

I've spent countless hours repairing and sealing penetrations.

I never saw it used in residential. There is also fire proofing boiler cement. I've seen that used in boiler rooms, once again, non residential.

Your original question was ""is "Great Stuff" foam insulation fireproof".

I don't have a can in front of me to confirm it, but I highly doubt it. I would think that it would melt before it burned, but when it did burn, the fumes would be toxic.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Usually the red stuff is fire proof.

OOOOhhhhhh that word ... "fire proof" ... ouch!

Yes, they all should be listed and labeled as 'suitable for use as draftstopping' and / or 'suitable for use as fireblocking'.

Simply stating it is fire-resistant is not sufficient.

And, yes, *most* of it is now reddish in color.

I started addressing that in South Florida about 6-8 years ago. I would pick up a can, call the company on the can (sometimes they had a phone number printed there and sometimes I had to get it from 411) and ask them if it was suitable for draftstopping or fireblocking.

At first they would say, 'yes, draft stopping, around windows, doors and the like', so I would clarify - 'No, not *draft stopping* as in two words, *draftstopping* as in one word, you know, for fire purposes'.

After they stopped laughing, they would say, no, of course not.

Then Dow started labeling some of their stuff for that use, and others started saying 'no, not yet, but our foam is undergoing testing as we speak, we should have results soon, I hope real soon'.

Once one brand was approved, the inspectors in South Florida started quickly catching on that the other brands were NOT approved, meaning a sudden drop in sales for the other brands - they were rushing through testing as fast as they could before they were completely lost in the dust.

Most companies now make two types, foam that is listed for draftstopping and foam that is not, and the foam that is not is cheaper, so much of that is STILL being used. I started writing that up about 2 years ago in the Orlando area, and within about 6 months 'most' were using the right stuff, but everyone now and then someone would use the wrong stuff and get caught, and have to rip out all of that foam and foam it with the right stuff. That is one way to learn quickly which not to use.

I was not aware of a foam that was listed for fire-stopping - that is, sealing penetrations in fire rated assemblies. Thanks for the info; such a product will certainly be easier to apply properly.

In honor of Jerry Peck. This one's for you Jerry.

NEC 300.21

Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion.
Electrical installations in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around electrical penetrations through fire-resistant-rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to maintain the fire resistance rating.

Now to me as an inspector, the term approved methods could be interpreted in a myriad of ways. I choose to see the term approved methods as to indicate a UL listing. After all, companies have went to great lengths to create a product that would qualify for a UL listing, so why not use it? I have people that call in wanting to know if they can use caulk, silicone or just "Great stuff", to which my usual reply is to ask whether or not it has a UL listing for firestopping. That usually takes care of itself. And on a more serious note, I believe that firestopping products should be UL listed as I have seen them make the difference between putting on a new roof and having to rebuild a house. Any amount of time that a fire can be slowed allows for time that the fire dept could definitely use.

One last note, "Great Stuff" now sells a firestopping foam, it's orange, and the local guys say it's the best thing since sliced bread. And yes, it's UL approved.

But is it UL approved?

Originally Posted by Shannon Guinn

Now to me as an inspector, the term approved methods could be interpreted in a myriad of ways. I choose to see the term approved methods as to indicate a UL listing.

Not 'just a UL listing', but a UL Design number for fire rating.

There are 100s of UL Design numbers for the various firestopping rating devices, methods, and assemblies.

If there is not a UL Design number, then it is not acceptable, not even if it is UL Listed as Firestopping.

Case in point ...

And on a more serious note, I believe that firestopping products should be UL listed as I have seen them make the difference between putting on a new roof and having to rebuild a house. Any amount of time that a fire can be slowed allows for time that the fire dept could definitely use.

One last note, "Great Stuff" now sells a firestopping foam, it's orange, and the local guys say it's the best thing since sliced bread. And yes, it's UL approved.

UL Listed, but for "what use" and "how is it to be used"?

Typically, in a non-fire-rated assembly, that is less critical as it is more "draftstopping" than "firestopping', but when used in a "Fire Rated Assembly", i.e., one which has a UL Design number, then the precise material/parts/pieces/etc., must be installed precisely as shown in the UL Design.

Simply squirting in some "firestopping"/"draftstopping" rated foam is not going to be acceptable - not in a "fire rated assembly".

The non-UL Listed foam is not allowed for use as firestopping or draftstopping, the UL Listed foam is ... within the limitations of the Listing and Labeling.

I called one of the manufacturers once and they stated that it basically is not allowed to be used for the uses it is typically used for (after I described the was it was being used) - and that was the UL Listed stuff.

Thanks for the reply Jerry. True to form, you go out of your way to be thorough. Until I joined the Building Inspections Dept. there wasn't any firestopping being required. It was the opinion of the Building Inspectors that firestopping was unnecessary because they just couldn't see as how fire could go up through holes inside walls? It was only after I instituted (backed by code references of course) firestopping and explained the necessary need for it that they finally saw the light.

Oh and Jerry,

I'm a little hurt that you didn't mention my quoting the NEC as an omage to you.

From my recollection, Great Stuff PRO is suitable for draftstopping and they have introduced a new orange colored product specifically labeled for fireblocking. The regular Great Stuff, the low expansion Great Stuff Window & Door, and the Great Stuff Large Gaps were not listed for draftstopping purposes.

However...

The listed use is for filling penetrations and small gaps. Dow specifically states that it is not intended for cavity filling purposes (although they have a note stating that it can be applied in layers that are allowed to fully cure before a new layer is applied).

I used it to fill in the rung holes on the sides of my ladder so it doesn't "sing" when I'm driving down the highway.

I have to disagree with a lot that has been said about fire-rated designs here.

Yes, UL does publish all manner of rated designs. Each such design includes myriad details of the design. This I understand.

However, most of the products used in the design are NOT ever identified as to the design, and many of the materials are generic materials. A block wall is a block wall, mortar is mortar, etc.

A sealant, when evaluated by UL, is not tested on every conceivable type of penetration in every possible wall assembly. It's just not possible to do so.

Rather, the sealant is tested to establish whether it is at least as good as the original material. For example, will it resist the fire at least as well as the drywall around it?

Which brings up the very idea of relying upon a UL listing. Apart from the fact that UL is NOT the only player in this game (Factory Mutual is another), products like sealants are only considered as substitutes for the original method. That is, it's perfectly OK to patch a drywall hole with joint compound, a masonry hole with mortar, etc. The sundry sealants (I happen to like the yellow and blue ones) are simply a more convenient method; it's easier to apply one caulk to everything, than for every tradesman to carry a complete assortmant of building materials.

Once applied, you generally have no way to determine what product was used, or if it was applied correctly ... unless you take it all apart. Which, of course, puts you right where you started, with an open hole. vb

As for the fire behavior of ordinary foam sealants .... the Browns' Ferry nuclear plant suffered a major fire in the 70's, the direct result of the use of foam to seal pipe openings. This fire is what directly led to the development of such special sealants. Expanding foams generally burn with great vigor.

I would submit that the proper evaluation of a fire resistant assembly is well beyond the scope, and competence, of a home inspector; that only the crassest faults can be identified; and that this is a field for a competent engineer or architect.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

However, most of the products used in the design are NOT ever identified as to the design, and many of the materials are generic materials. A block wall is a block wall, mortar is mortar, etc.

Ever read a UL design?

http://www.adfire.com/FS%20products/...272_021207.pdf

First page: Look at what key number 1 is pointing to ... the floor or wall material.

Second page: Read what it says about that material ... "Wall may also be constructed of any UL Classified Concrete Blocks*."

Now follow that asterisk to "*Bearing the UL Classification Mark".

Now, just how many concrete blocks have you seen which bear *ANY* mark, much less a UL Classification Mark. Heck, looking at a concrete block and you would not even know what manufacturer made it - and that does matter: "See Concrete Blocks (CAZT) and Precast Concrete Units (CFTV) categories in the Fire Resistance Directory for names of manufacturers." ... in case you missed it.

A sealant, when evaluated by UL, is not tested on every conceivable type of penetration in every possible wall assembly. It's just not possible to do so.

A sealant is tested to make sure it does what it is intended to do.

Back to that UL design, Configuration A, key number 3B, that is the "sealant". Let's see what it says about the sealant: "B. Fill,Void or Cavity Material* - Caulk - Min. 1/2 in. (13 mm) thickness of fill material applied within the annulus, flush with top surface of floor or with both surfaces of wall and hollow-core precast concrete unit. Caulk to be forced into interstices of cable group to max. extent possible. When thickness of packing material (Item 3A) increased to 4-1/4 in. (108 mm), min. thickness of fill material is 1/4 in. (6 mm).", that specifies how thick, how it is to be applied, etc., then ... don't forget that asterisk ""*Bearing the UL Classification Mark"." Yes, not just any caulk will do, it must be UL Classified for that purpose, and, yes, any UL Classified caulk for that purpose will do, this drawing happens to be from A/D Fire Protection Systems, so they inserted their brand of intumescent sealant.

Rather, the sealant is tested to establish whether it is at least as good as the original material. For example, will it resist the fire at least as well as the drywall around it?

Kind of sort of on the right track with that one.

Which brings up the very idea of relying upon a UL listing. Apart from the fact that UL is NOT the only player in this game (Factory Mutual is another), products like sealants are only considered as substitutes for the original method. That is, it's perfectly OK to patch a drywall hole with joint compound, a masonry hole with mortar, etc.

That is why you were "Kind of sort of on the right track", but not fully on the right track.

You cannot ... I repeat CANNOT ... okay, change that ... NOT ALLOWED ... NOT ALLOWED to just willy nilly replace sealant with drywall mud just because it may be in a gypsum board wall.

No need to reply to what followed, the result would have been more of the same as the above.

Jerry, you'll just have to trust me on this .....

Read the UL designs? Have them? Heck, you're taslking to the very guy who performed many of those sealant tests. Don't read too much into them.

Just as the NEC itself starts out with "this is not an instruction manual," the UL design info is intended as a design reference for competent professionals. Unless someone here has the appropriate engineering or archetectural licenses, and specific background, they're simply not qualified to evaluate designs, or field modifications.

Heck, you could slavishly duplicate every detail in one of those drawings, and still not have a UL listed assembly; such comes only after a supplimentary "Field Evaluation" by UL.

UL Classified concrete blocks? That's pretty funny. Not that they don't exist; I just defy you to find one that doesn't meet the specification. Ditto for mortar, drywall, etc. Why? Because the UL standard in these instances is essentially identical to the industry-wide ANSI specs. Not that an inspector could ever tell the difference; any marking is likely to be on the pallet (not on the individual blocks), or painted over.

I'll state my position again, quite clearly .... as it appears you'd rather cut, paste, then criticize the Frankenstein you've created:
ANY hole in ANY material can be repaired / sealed / patched with the same material that was removed. You do NOT need to use any sort of special product. If you're patching masonry, mortar will do. If you're patching drywall, joint compound is just fine. If it's a hole in sheathing, a piece of plywood will do.

The entire purpose of the specialty products was to give you a greater spectrum of use, and added convenience. They were never, ever, intended to replace traditional methods.

Let's look at how things are built. When a plan has to be changed, it is the engineer or architect who makes the judgement call as to whether the proposed action will affect the rating. The HI is in no position to second-guess these calls, no matter how many books he's looked at. Lacking the proper license, the HI is, by definition, not legally competent.

It appears that you and I are in complete disagreement on this issue. Fair enough. We're all entitled to our opinions. But, for the rest of the board, I can state two facts:
1) Neither of us is 'legally competent' in this matter; and,
2) I've actually performed the tests.

Let the reader believe who they may.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

UL Classified concrete blocks? That's pretty funny. Not that they don't exist; I just defy you to find one that doesn't meet the specification.

Not talking about 'meeting the specification they are tested to', I'm talking about 'meeting the specification the fire stopping design is shown as'.

If it specifically states "*Bearing the UL Classification Mark", then it must - to meet that UL design.

You disagree, I understand, however, when it goes to court, there are facts in evidence, and that is - those concrete blocks ARE NOT "*Bearing the UL Classification Mark", and thus "should not have been used".

When the other party's expert says they meet the specifications, here is the paperwork, the cross examination quite simply asks "Are they bearing the UL classification mark?" John, that is a "Yes." or "No." question, and no 'but, but, but THEY MEET the specification' will save it as part of the specification is that they shall be so marked.

Would YOU knowingly install a device which DOES NOT bear the UL mark (or other NRTL mark), relying on 'but I know it meets the specification'?

Maybe you would. *I* would not.

OK, this is rather simple.

If it is a SFR and you are not protecting a penetration between fire rated assemblies and just for between floor "flame spread and smoke density", then as long as the product meets the ASTM E 84 testing procedure requirements, you are OK. This of course is providing that your building code is the IRC.

If however you are penetrating between fire rated assemblies such as between an attached garage and the interior, you will need a material that meets the same hour rating as the assembly you are penetrating.

After reading Jerry's reply, I am in agreement with what he is saying. Placing joint compound around a penetration through a 1 hour wall is not adequate. Joint compound is not sheetrock.

If you penetrate through 2 top plates to make a run into the 2nd floor you certainly cannot seal it with wood, hence the products such as foams, pastes and putty are needed.

Unless you make yourself very familiar with chapter 7 of the IBC you will not understand just how complex some of these situations can be.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

Your original question was ""is "Great Stuff" foam insulation fireproof".

I don't have a can in front of me to confirm it, but I highly doubt it. I would think that it would melt before it burned, but when it did burn, the fumes would be toxic.

correct,it will melt and fill home with toxic fumes,then burst into flames, just happend to me last night,at location i sprayed the great stuff foam insulation to hold wood stove exhaust pipe into place in cement wall. I may have just bought a isolated bad batch of it though.

Originally Posted by Thomas Shaw

i sprayed the great stuff foam insulation to hold wood stove exhaust pipe into place in cement wall.

First, that foam is not made for that purpose.

Second, no foam is made for that purpose.

Third, in fact, no insulation should be against that flue or any flue or vent.

Fourth, a listed wall thimble should be used for that purpose.

And, finally, ...

I may have just bought a isolated bad batch of it though.

Nope. Expanded foam is simply not intended to be used against things which get hot.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Third, in fact, no insulation should be against that flue or any flue or vent.

Somewhat off-topic, but I thought a 2100F+ insulation (for example CeraChem 2600F insulating blanket) was acceptable if called for in the manufacturer's installation instructions. I can't find the reference though, so I could be remembering incorrectly.

I have contracted a tremendous amount of work in hospitals, schools, nursing homes, office condos with rear warehouses and separations between the warehouse and the office next door, office buildings city structures governmet buildings of all kind includint countless military complexes, submarine hangers ......all.

Whenever the drywall went up between areas of any two different or sections of different use or the same use and there were metal supports penetrating the walls or wires penetrating the walls it all got taped and bedded. The only area we ever used foam of a fire rated type or other material of a fire rated type was at the metal corrugation at the top of the wall.

Of course and ducts penetrating this areas had to have fire dampers and such but as far as the drywall, taped and bedded. This was around the support beams, conduit, individual wires etc.

Anyway, if someone punches a hole for a conduit thru a concrete block wall or drills a hole thru a concrete wall then mortar is acceptable and always has been unless of course the hole was far too large for mortar to work and then an adhered rated product, even a layer or 2 of frie rated drywall and taped and bedded was always acceptable.

As building inspectors we can only go by the material called for for that particular institution in the engineering plans. We are not engineers and did not do the design and engineering work. We have nothing else to go by but the plans. We can balk at any set of plans we ever see but if they were followed then what we say means nothing what so ever. We can ask questions, bring information forth that may (maybe) dispute the specs in those plans. If what was used was called for in the specs then as building inspectors we have no more to say about it.

Now, maybe, just maybe, someone in Jerry's position as a city official could say something because his department head would have already accepted or rejected the plans but even in that case if an engineer drew up the plans then at best they can ask for what the engineer used to create those specs and just maybe the engineer was wrong or may rethink it but if no changes are made then those plans still have to be followed.

If ever in question you can ask the building officials in your municipality and they will check on it and either give you an answer straight away or get back to you. Unlike what most think the vast majority of folks in that line of work are easy to work with and will check things out (unless you are always questioning everything under the sun). If the building officials stick by the use of a particular material then you are pretty much left standing there with your pants down watering in the wind.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Somewhat off-topic, but I thought a 2100F+ insulation (for example CeraChem 2600F insulating blanket) was acceptable if called for in the manufacturer's installation instructions. I can't find the reference though, so I could be remembering incorrectly.

It's not the temperature rating of the insulation, its that the chimney, flue, vent should not have any insulation around it within its minimum clearances.

The premise is that any insulation or building material that is in contact with the flue pipe may prevent that section of the pipe from cooling down properly and create a hot spot.

Originally Posted by Thomas Shaw

correct,it will melt and fill home with toxic fumes,then burst into flames, just happend to me last night,at location i sprayed the great stuff foam insulation to hold wood stove exhaust pipe into place in cement wall.

On your truck it's an exhaust pipe. On a woodstove in a house, it is a chimney.

I may have just bought a isolated bad batch of it though.

No, it was a bad choice of materials. Woodstoves burn hotter than gas or oil. Metal or masonry, no plastic, as you found out last night.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

The premise is that any insulation or building material that is in contact with the flue pipe may prevent that section of the pipe from cooling down properly and create a hot spot.

Right, but if the mfr specifies a thermal blanket? That's what I'm questioning - I'm unaware if there is a code provision prohibiting the installation of a ceramic thermal blanket even if the mfr says you should.

I know I've seen blankets specified for flues on wood and coke fired kilns and ovens. I can't recall if I've seen them specified elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

I have contracted a tremendous amount of work in hospitals, schools, nursing homes, office condos with rear warehouses and separations between the warehouse and the office next door, office buildings city structures governmet buildings of all kind includint countless military complexes, submarine hangers ......all.

Whenever the drywall went up between areas of any two different or sections of different use or the same use and there were metal supports penetrating the walls or wires penetrating the walls it all got taped and bedded. The only area we ever used foam of a fire rated type or other material of a fire rated type was at the metal corrugation at the top of the wall.

Of course and ducts penetrating this areas had to have fire dampers and such but as far as the drywall, taped and bedded. This was around the support beams, conduit, individual wires etc.

Anyway, if someone punches a hole for a conduit thru a concrete block wall or drills a hole thru a concrete wall then mortar is acceptable and always has been unless of course the hole was far too large for mortar to work and then an adhered rated product, even a layer or 2 of frie rated drywall and taped and bedded was always acceptable.

As building inspectors we can only go by the material called for for that particular institution in the engineering plans. We are not engineers and did not do the design and engineering work. We have nothing else to go by but the plans. We can balk at any set of plans we ever see but if they were followed then what we say means nothing what so ever. We can ask questions, bring information forth that may (maybe) dispute the specs in those plans. If what was used was called for in the specs then as building inspectors we have no more to say about it......

Ted.
I'd like to add a few comments to yours. My background is designing communications rooms and structured wiring systems for buildings. Yes, in the old days, you could just poke a hole for your wire, maybe come back later and seal the hole..... (maybe). But, currently the specifications for penetrations are more stringent, even more so if it is a fire wall. The fire stopped sleeve replaced the "poke-through" for an example. There are plenty of materials available to provide proper fire stoping, see this 3M site for information products and applications:

Fire Stopping

It should answer most if not all of any questions on fire stopping. I can vouch for these products and they were always specified in any design that I did.
Rich

The "fireproff orange foam is not fire proof.I was installing fire blocking at a nursing home and we ran out of the commercal and used the home depot stuff,the fire marshall spotted it and flagged it .I asked him why and he broke off a piece,Took out his lighter and lit it on fire.

Originally Posted by terry russell

The "fireproff orange foam is not fire proof.I was installing fire blocking at a nursing home and we ran out of the commercal and used the home depot stuff,the fire marshall spotted it and flagged it .I asked him why and he broke off a piece,Took out his lighter and lit it on fire.

Were you "Fireblocking" or "Firestopping"?

There is a big difference between the two and between the materials allowed for the two different uses.

sorry fire stopping

Originally Posted by terry russell

sorry fire stopping

Yes, that orange foam is not at all suitable for that purpose. Bet you had fun removing that stuff?