Fireproofing a Steel Lally Column
Rich-in-WA
about to build. I went in to see the building official today
concerning a handful of pick-ups they'd marked on the drawings. One
concerned a 4" dia steel lally column that's meant to support the
midspan of a glulam in a 2-car garage with living space above. The
plan was to weld Simpson Strong-Tie lally column caps to the ends of a
concrete-filled 4" pipe.
The note asked me to provide info on what type of "1-hr
fireproofing" would be applied to the column. I previously had not
heard of this requirement for steel garage columns. I even included
one of the same design in a house we built a couple years back (in a
different jurisdiction). I'm also aware of at least one house built
in this very jurisdiction several years back that has the exact same
situation, and no sort of fireproofing applied.
I asked the plans examiner if this was a new requirement, and he
said no. I asked if the concrete would count as fireproofing (it adds
stability to the section). He answered no, commenting that concrete
will start to "pop" under the heat of a fire. When I asked him what
other builders are doing to address this, he offered no info. His
only suggestion was to search the internet on "UL listed fireproof
column". Such a search turned up nothing that looked appropriate for
residential use.
The only other option he proposed was replacing the steel column
with a wood post, wrapped in 5/8 GWB. This would be fine I suppose,
but I like the smaller size of the steel column. It also seems less
likely to get banged up by the inevitable abuse a post sitting between
two garage stalls is bound to see.
Has anyone else heard of such an interpretation of the code? Is
there any slick and cost effective way to deal with this? Perhaps an
asbestos blanket...
Richard Johnson PE
Camano Island, WA
Rico dJour
>Date: 08/17/2004 6:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <89b959f0.04081...@posting.google.com>
That's a new one on me, too.
Here's something that might work:
http://www.albi.com/cladtf.html
R
eds
"Rich-in-WA" <richard....@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:89b959f0.04081...@posting.google.com...
The old "Lally" columns were simply steel columns with a concrete filling
and heavy base and cap plates. The company has been out of business for
years. (The old brochure had a picture of a burned building with all the
steel draped down around the still standing Lally columns.)
An application of Intumescent fireproofing ( about 1/4" thick) will give you
your protection. Google "Albi Fireproofing", although others make similar
materials. It's not cheap.
I used this stuff back in 1979 to coat the steel columns of a college field
house with a 4,000 person capacity. It has held up very well to dings, etc.
EDS
Randy Jones
applying in this case. Does anyone have any idea? Required fire resistance
of structural elements is based upon Construction Type (I, II, III, etc.).
Not looking to prove him wrong, just curious about his decision.
"Rich-in-WA" <richard....@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:89b959f0.04081...@posting.google.com...
Bob Morrison
> I would be very interested to know what portion of what code the BO is
> applying in this case. Does anyone have any idea? Required fire resistance
> of structural elements is based upon Construction Type (I, II, III, etc.).
> Not looking to prove him wrong, just curious about his decision.
>
Rich:
I agree. As far as I know there is no requirement for this column to be
fire-proofed. Make him/her cite the code section. These guys sometimes
make up stuff as they go along so don't let them get away with it. And
yes I know the plan checkers in your jurisdiction, so make 'em cite the
appropriate code section.
--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
JR-jred
Bob Morrison <bob@_REMOVE_rlmorrisonengr.com> wrote:
> In a previous post Randy Jones says...
> > I would be very interested to know what portion of what code the BO is
> > applying in this case. Does anyone have any idea? Required fire resistance
> > of structural elements is based upon Construction Type (I, II, III, etc.).
> > Not looking to prove him wrong, just curious about his decision.
> >
>
> Rich:
>
> I agree. As far as I know there is no requirement for this column to be
> fire-proofed. Make him/her cite the code section. These guys sometimes
> make up stuff as they go along so don't let them get away with it. And
> yes I know the plan checkers in your jurisdiction, so make 'em cite the
> appropriate code section.
You hit it right on the head. Often, if you ask for it in writing,
you'd be amazed at how quickly some of these guys back off.
--
-JR
Hung like Einstein and smart as a horse
Remove NO SPAM from e-mai address to reply
Eric Ryder
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
news:20040817195010...@mb-m20.aol.com...
Rich-in-WA
for requiring fire protection on the steel lally column in our garage.
He cited UBC 1997, Volume 1, section 302.2, pg 13. Our state just
converted to the IBC, but this job was submitted under the old code.
I haven't had a chance to look at the actual text of the code, but I
found several references to it on the web. Most of them read
something like this:
"When a garage is located under a dwelling, or the ceiling is being
used as part of the separation, bearing walls, columns and beams
supporting the horizontal separation must be protected by materials
approved for one-hour fire resistive construction (UBC Sec. 302.2)"
I asked him again what other builders in the area are doing, and
he said they're mostly going with wood. It's not really worth pushing
the issue, since this same guy will likely do our inspections (we only
have two plan checker / inspectors in our county annex). Besides, I
suppose it's a good thing that the ceiling doesn't collapse during a
fire. It looks like I better either start looking for some
fireproofing or add a wood post to the takeoff...
Rich-in-WA
Richard Johnson PE
Camano Island, WA
JR-jred
richard....@boeing.com (Rich-in-WA) wrote:
So, what's the rating for a lally column?
Bob Morrison
> "When a garage is located under a dwelling, or the ceiling is being
> used as part of the separation, bearing walls, columns and beams
> supporting the horizontal separation must be protected by materials
> approved for one-hour fire resistive construction (UBC Sec. 302.2)"
>
>
Rich:
I have been unable to find the cited code reference. Section 302 talks
about occupancy separations which different than types of construction.
You are required to have a one-hour "occupancy separation" between the
garage and the rest of the house, but within the garage "occupancy" the
construction can be "non-rated".
I believe your code person has misapplied the section. The house is a
Group R-3 and the garage is Group U-1. Both the house and the garage
are Type V-N construction meaning that they have no fire rating
requirements for the structural system
P.Fritz
"Bob Morrison" <bob@_REMOVE_rlmorrisonengr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8e5db51...@news.west.earthlink.net...
It is in the International Residential Code.
Section R309.2
'The garage shall be separated from the residence and its attic by not less
than 1/2 inch gypsum board applied to the garage side. Where the separation
is a floor-ceiling assembly, the structure supporting the separation shall
also be protected by not less than 1/2 inch gypsum board or equivalent.
Lyle B. Harwood
Morrison <bob@_REMOVE_rlmorrisonengr.com> wrote:
€ In a previous post Rich-in-WA says...
€ > "When a garage is located under a dwelling, or the ceiling is being
€ > used as part of the separation, bearing walls, columns and beams
€ > supporting the horizontal separation must be protected by materials
€ > approved for one-hour fire resistive construction (UBC Sec. 302.2)"
€ >
€ >
€
€ Rich:
€
€ I have been unable to find the cited code reference. Section 302 talks
€ about occupancy separations which different than types of construction.
I concur.
Section 302.2 of the Seattle Building Code, which is a modified version
of the UBC:
"Forms of Occupancy Separations. Occupancy separations shall be
vertical or horizontal or both or, when necessary, of such other form
as may be required to afford a complete separation between the various
occupancy divisions in the building.
Where the occupancy separation is horizontal, structural members
supporting the separation shall be protected by equivalent
fire-resistive construction."
That's it. That's the whole section.
This discussion does demonstrate quite clearly why design must be
local, and why McPlans are false economy.
The same section says three different things, even in the same state,
and is interpreted a fourth way by the building department in question.
It's a perfect example of why a Washington answer won't work for an
Alabama question. In fact, a King County answer doesn't even work for
an Island County question, and the Seattle answer doesn't work for King
County!
When it comes to building code questions, the internet in general and
newsgroups in particular just aren't authoritative sources. Maybe
someday, but not yet.
The real authority is the guy who can stop your project, and the guy
who is supposed to be current on the local code is the architect,
backed up by an engineer.
That all said, it never pays to argue with a building inspector. It's
always cheaper, easier and faster just to make the change. Personally,
I suspect they had recalcitrant, "expert" contractors in mind when they
designed the bureaucracy that way, and I suspect they did it on
purpose.
I'm sticking to my city limits. That way, at least I can go read my
copy of the code...
Best of luck, and let us know how it comes out!
--
Lyle B. Harwood, President
Phoenix Homes, Inc.
(206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
Rich-in-WA
> So, what's the rating for a lally column?
I wouldn't have any idea. If anyone knows how to go about
calcualting this, please let me know. It seems like it would have to
be derived by testing. I put an email into Simpson Strong-Tie to see
if they have any info on the fire rating of the LCC5.25-4 lally column
cap that I intended to use.
Richard Johnson PE
Camano ISland, WA
Jay C
> 'The garage shall be separated from the residence and its attic by not
less
> than 1/2 inch gypsum board applied to the garage side. Where the
separation
> is a floor-ceiling assembly, the structure supporting the separation shall
> also be protected by not less than 1/2 inch gypsum board or equivalent.
So? Wrap the column in gypsum board. It's stupid, but it'll comply.
Jay
Bob Morrison
> calcualting this, please let me know. It seems like it would have to
> be derived by testing. I put an email into Simpson Strong-Tie to see
> if they have any info on the fire rating of the LCC5.25-4 lally column
> cap that I intended to use.
>
Rich:
After reading the previous posts I went back into UBC97 Section 302.2
and re-read it.
Mea Culpa! I now believe your plan reviewer is correct. The steel column
must have one-hour protection which is defined as 1 layer of 5/8" type X
Randy Jones
There can be multiple uses but the occupancy is residential.
"Lyle B. Harwood" <ly...@invalid.phoenixhomesinc.com> wrote in message
news:cg2gon$177$0$216.39....@theriver.com...
> In article <MPG.1b8e5db51...@news.west.earthlink.net>, Bob
> Morrison <bob@_REMOVE_rlmorrisonengr.com> wrote:
>
> ? In a previous post Rich-in-WA says...
> ? > "When a garage is located under a dwelling, or the ceiling is being
> ? > used as part of the separation, bearing walls, columns and beams
> ? > supporting the horizontal separation must be protected by materials
> ? > approved for one-hour fire resistive construction (UBC Sec. 302.2)"
> ? >
> ? >
> ?
> ? Rich:
> ?
> ? I have been unable to find the cited code reference. Section 302 talks
> ? about occupancy separations which different than types of construction.
Bob Morrison
> There can be multiple uses but the occupancy is residential.
>
Not quite true. Single Family residence is defined as a Group R-3 and
residential garage is defined as a Group U-1. These require an
occupancy separation of one-hour construction.
Randy Jones
"Bob Morrison" <bob@_REMOVE_rlmorrisonengr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8eee631...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Tom Baker
> In a previous post Rich-in-WA says...
> > I wouldn't have any idea. If anyone knows how to go about
> > calcualting this, please let me know. It seems like it would have to
> > be derived by testing. I put an email into Simpson Strong-Tie to see
> > if they have any info on the fire rating of the LCC5.25-4 lally column
> > cap that I intended to use.
> >
>
> Rich:
>
> After reading the previous posts I went back into UBC97 Section 302.2
> and re-read it.
>
> Mea Culpa! I now believe your plan reviewer is correct. The steel column
> must have one-hour protection which is defined as 1 layer of 5/8" type X
UL listst some steel columns with fire resistance ratings of from 1 to
4 hours.
BLUV.101 shows square and round tube columns encased in concrete
within an outer steel shell.
Some of the connection ratings may be more than residential
construction.
TB
Rich-in-WA
column. First though, a warning that the following is pretty far off
the contracting topic and is for engineers or tech geeks only.
Proceed with caution...
I did some more digging (ain't the internet great) and found
some info on the fire-resistance of concrete-filled steel columns. It
turns out that filling a column with concrete does indeed increase its
ability to resist failure during a fire. This contradicts the
code-official's opinion that concrete filling would provide no
benefit. The process is complex with the steel first expanding
(unloading the concrete) until it softens to the point the column
begins to compress reloading the concrete once again. The specific
behavior is dependent on the steel itself and the type of concrete
used. Fiber-mesh concrete performs better than plain, lasting longer
and failing more gradually. For a typical steel section filled with
plain 3000psi concrete the added fire resistance is 1-2 hours.
This research eventually led me to ASCE/SFPE standard 29-99
"Standard Calculation Methods for Structural Fire Protection" (Article
5.2.3). This publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers
provides a simple analytical method for calculating the
fire-resistance in hours for round and square columns filled with
various types of concrete under specific loadings. There are size
limitations that preclude using the method directly on some smaller
columns, but it should be quite useful in many cases. For those who
may have visited Museum of Flight in Seattle, this method was used to
qualify the fireproofing of the Great Gallery structure.
With this info in hand, I was able to work up a 1-page analysis
for my particular column that shows a fire resistance of almost 2
hours - well beyond the required 1 hour. I'll run this by the code
official later this week to see how he feels about the solution. It
won't be the end of the world if he still asks for wood and GWB, but I
think I've made a pretty good technical case for the original design.
3D Peruna
Great info for future reference... Thank you!
P
Rico dJour
>
> With this info in hand, I was able to work up a 1-page analysis
>for my particular column that shows a fire resistance of almost 2
>hours - well beyond the required 1 hour. I'll run this by the code
>official later this week to see how he feels about the solution. It
>won't be the end of the world if he still asks for wood and GWB, but I
>think I've made a pretty good technical case for the original design.
>
>Richard Johnson PE
Hey Richard. Does the code official know your a PE? If you signed and sealed
a design, his ass would be covered. That may be all he's looking for.
R
P. Fritz
"Rich-in-WA" <richard....@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:89b959f0.04082...@posting.google.com...
Ralph Hertle
Lally makes fireproof columns. I think that their current lines are
modular column components for larger buildings.
I don't think that they carry the small diam. or adjustable round steel
tube columns that were intended for light construction. They could do
well by bringing out an updated, i.e., fire rated, line of small
columns. They certainly have the respected name, "Lally," and the
credentials for quality products.
Lally is a difficult to find company on the internet. They are there,
however, they aren't doing much with P.R.
Ralph Hertle
Rich-in-WA
Ralph et al,
I think the term "Lally Column" started out as a brand name, but
has become a generic term for a small round steel column (often filled
with concrete). It's sort of like calling a tissue a Kleenex. While
doing my research, I found Lally on the internet. I believe they're
back in Chicago. Problem is the building suppliers I talked with in
my area can't get their products. What they can get are Simpson
Strong-Tie "Lally Column Caps", which are pieces of hardware designed
to be welded to round steel tubes of various diameters. Simpson lists
weld specs and design values in their catalog. This is what I used
for the design I did about three years ago.
I also briefly looked into fireproof coatings (paints). It
looked like they would be price prohibitive in the small quantities I
would need for my one-time use. It also went against one of the
reasons I wanted steel in the first place - having a robust finish
that would stand up to abuse out in the middle of my garage. I was
more interested in "qualifying" the relatively cheap and simple design
I already had.
Ralph Hertle
fire...@gmail.com
refer to design X101, x104, and x106. If these do not fit, I would
recommend you print these designs from www.ul.com, Fire Resistance
Directory, and give them to your fire marshall, and let him suggest a
thickness. Currently, non of these designs have additional
fireproofing. The concrete inside acts as a fireproofing.
firechuck
richard....@boeing.com (Rich-in-WA) wrote in message news:<89b959f0.04081...@posting.google.com>...