I recently failed a wall inspection for installing cut-in boxs in a fire wall? I have done this particular installation many times before and had no problems, all of them fire-caulked and straped after coming out of the wall into the droped ceiling. I was told that the box either had to be braced off to a stud or screwed to a stud which required that I cut a hole in the fire -wall remove the cut-in box and install a 4 square and screw it to the stud!? I asked where This code is in the eletrical code book and was told that it is a new building code that required all boxes be supported to a framing member. I live and have worked in Orlando Fla. my entire carreer and is there anyone else having this code inforced in my area or other areas and do you know where and what book this building code is in.?! Imput wuold be greatly appreciated thanks again guys Scott
Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
- Thread starter dscottmm
- Start date
- Status
physis
Senior Member
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
I've always asked for specific code references when I've felt my work was compliant and there was an inspection issue (if we couldn't agree anyway). There's a little resistance sometimes, but my AHJ's have always either printed it for me or have given me a web ssite to reference or whatever else.
No reason you shouldn't be given the particular building code if you ask for it.
Edit: I don't mean to say that there might not be someone that can actually answer the question.
[ April 28, 2005, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
I've always asked for specific code references when I've felt my work was compliant and there was an inspection issue (if we couldn't agree anyway). There's a little resistance sometimes, but my AHJ's have always either printed it for me or have given me a web ssite to reference or whatever else.
No reason you shouldn't be given the particular building code if you ask for it.
Edit: I don't mean to say that there might not be someone that can actually answer the question.
[ April 28, 2005, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
websparky
Senior Member
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
It depends on the rating of the wall. If it is a one hour wall, metal boxes like you used are permitted. I think two hour also. The prescribed fire resistance ratings are listed in the UL standards books and should be listed on the approved stamped plans. Based on what the plans specify is what the inspector must go by. The 2003 IBC does not mention box mounting. I don't recall reading it in any of the specs from UL.
If I were you, I'd read the plan specs and compare them to what the inspector is asking. There may be a local code that you are not aware of but, it would have to be in writting to be enforcable.
Good Luck!
It depends on the rating of the wall. If it is a one hour wall, metal boxes like you used are permitted. I think two hour also. The prescribed fire resistance ratings are listed in the UL standards books and should be listed on the approved stamped plans. Based on what the plans specify is what the inspector must go by. The 2003 IBC does not mention box mounting. I don't recall reading it in any of the specs from UL.
If I were you, I'd read the plan specs and compare them to what the inspector is asking. There may be a local code that you are not aware of but, it would have to be in writting to be enforcable.
Good Luck!
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
I beleive it is in the UL orange book. I remember Roger and I talking about this a while back and he showed me the reference. Hopefully he'll read this and post it, otherwise I'll try to look for the reference tommorrow.
I beleive it is in the UL orange book. I remember Roger and I talking about this a while back and he showed me the reference. Hopefully he'll read this and post it, otherwise I'll try to look for the reference tommorrow.
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
Ryan is correct, the UL orange books (Fire Resistance Directory) requires all boxes with in a rated assembly to be secured to the structural framing.
From Volume One of the UL Fire Resistance Directory.
WALL AND PARTITION ASSEMBLIES
Metallic Eletrical Outlet Boxes
Listed single and double gang metallic outlet and switch boxes with metallic or nonmetalliccover plates may be used in bearing and nonbearing wood stud and steel stud walls with ratings not exceeding 2h. These walls shall have gypsum wallboard facings similar to those shown in Design Nos. U301,U411, and U425. The metallic outlet or switch boxes shall be securely fastened to the studs and the opening in the wallboard facing shall be cut so that the clearance between the box and the wallboard does not exceed 1/8 in. The surface area of individual metallic outlet or switch boxes shall not exceed 16 sq in. The aggregate surface area of the boxes shall not exceed 100 sq in per 100 sq ft of wall surface.
Metallic boxes located on opposite sides of walls or partitions shall be seperated by a minimum horizontal distance of 24in. This minimum seperation distance between metallic boxes may be reduced when "Wall Opening Protective Materials" (CLIV) are installed according to the requirements of their Classification.
Metallic boxes shall not be installed on opposite side of walls or partitions of staggered stud construction unless "Wall Opening Protective Materials" are installed according to the requirements of their Classification.
Roger
Ryan is correct, the UL orange books (Fire Resistance Directory) requires all boxes with in a rated assembly to be secured to the structural framing.
From Volume One of the UL Fire Resistance Directory.
WALL AND PARTITION ASSEMBLIES
Metallic Eletrical Outlet Boxes
Listed single and double gang metallic outlet and switch boxes with metallic or nonmetalliccover plates may be used in bearing and nonbearing wood stud and steel stud walls with ratings not exceeding 2h. These walls shall have gypsum wallboard facings similar to those shown in Design Nos. U301,U411, and U425. The metallic outlet or switch boxes shall be securely fastened to the studs and the opening in the wallboard facing shall be cut so that the clearance between the box and the wallboard does not exceed 1/8 in. The surface area of individual metallic outlet or switch boxes shall not exceed 16 sq in. The aggregate surface area of the boxes shall not exceed 100 sq in per 100 sq ft of wall surface.
Metallic boxes located on opposite sides of walls or partitions shall be seperated by a minimum horizontal distance of 24in. This minimum seperation distance between metallic boxes may be reduced when "Wall Opening Protective Materials" (CLIV) are installed according to the requirements of their Classification.
Metallic boxes shall not be installed on opposite side of walls or partitions of staggered stud construction unless "Wall Opening Protective Materials" are installed according to the requirements of their Classification.
Roger
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
Thanks Roger.
Thanks Roger.
websparky
Senior Member
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
Dang it! Roger beat me to it!
Orange Book it is.
Thanks Roger.
Dang it! Roger beat me to it!
Orange Book it is.
Thanks Roger.
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
The rules in the Orange Book only apply when you're using a UL classified fire resistive assembly.
If you use an assembly identified for example in the '97 UBC (which we are still on), then all you have to do is follow the rules in chapter 7 of the UBC which mention nothing about the supporting of the outlet box.
Personally I think the UBC falls short here. I don't see how a cut in box could pass the hose stream test.
The 1/8 inch rule in the UL rules is also good. using drywall mud to fill that gap meets the NEC, but would not hold up (in my opinion) to a hose stream test.
There is nothing in either document regarding fire caulk around the edge of the outlet box where it comes through the wall.
The rules in the Orange Book only apply when you're using a UL classified fire resistive assembly.
If you use an assembly identified for example in the '97 UBC (which we are still on), then all you have to do is follow the rules in chapter 7 of the UBC which mention nothing about the supporting of the outlet box.
Personally I think the UBC falls short here. I don't see how a cut in box could pass the hose stream test.
The 1/8 inch rule in the UL rules is also good. using drywall mud to fill that gap meets the NEC, but would not hold up (in my opinion) to a hose stream test.
There is nothing in either document regarding fire caulk around the edge of the outlet box where it comes through the wall.
physis
Senior Member
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
I'm glad you brought it up Larry. I was wondering where UL has authority here.
And the water stream test is something I haven't had to be informed about but the question just jumps out at me:
What could withstand a fire hose water stream?
Edit: And is the water from the fire guy hose really what you're trying to stop. Those guys are there to all but tear the building down if it's on fire. They're taking the sheet rock down before they leave anyway.
[ April 29, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
I'm glad you brought it up Larry. I was wondering where UL has authority here.
And the water stream test is something I haven't had to be informed about but the question just jumps out at me:
What could withstand a fire hose water stream?
Edit: And is the water from the fire guy hose really what you're trying to stop. Those guys are there to all but tear the building down if it's on fire. They're taking the sheet rock down before they leave anyway.
[ April 29, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
I don't think it can be said that UL has 'authority' anywhere.
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
Larry and Sam, who designates and classifies a wall assembly in CA? If it is the UBC, I gather there is not much as far as tested fire proofing assemblies. Do they require listed componets (I.E. Fire caulk) to insure a safe assembly for anything?
I believe FL uses UL designs for rated assemblies, which puts this thread under the Orange Books and closes the question.
Roger
[ April 29, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
Larry and Sam, who designates and classifies a wall assembly in CA? If it is the UBC, I gather there is not much as far as tested fire proofing assemblies. Do they require listed componets (I.E. Fire caulk) to insure a safe assembly for anything?
I believe FL uses UL designs for rated assemblies, which puts this thread under the Orange Books and closes the question.
Roger
[ April 29, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
I don't know the building code to well however I would be surprised if UL is ever mentioned.
I imagine it would reference any approved NTL.
OK Jim, would you like UL to give out it's standards for free?
I don't know the building code to well however I would be surprised if UL is ever mentioned.
I imagine it would reference any approved NTL.
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
sandsnow; the 97 UBC doesn't need to mention support of boxes as penetrations of rated walls specifically require a tested assembly, which the UL may satisfy. Other acredited listings may suffice. To use a non-supported box, you need a listing. It's in the beginning of chapter 7 of the 97 UBC.
paul
sandsnow; the 97 UBC doesn't need to mention support of boxes as penetrations of rated walls specifically require a tested assembly, which the UL may satisfy. Other acredited listings may suffice. To use a non-supported box, you need a listing. It's in the beginning of chapter 7 of the 97 UBC.
paul
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
You ask where does UL have the authority? It does not have or want the authority, it LISTS.
If you read certain sections in the NEC, and also the building code, such as:
"E3303.3 Listing and labeling. Electrical materials, components, devices, fixtures and equipment shall be listed for the application, shall bear the label of an approved agency and shall be installed, and used, or both, in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions."
This is where the listing agency (UL is one of them) has worded (listed) info that should be followed.
You ask where does UL have the authority? It does not have or want the authority, it LISTS.
If you read certain sections in the NEC, and also the building code, such as:
"E3303.3 Listing and labeling. Electrical materials, components, devices, fixtures and equipment shall be listed for the application, shall bear the label of an approved agency and shall be installed, and used, or both, in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions."
This is where the listing agency (UL is one of them) has worded (listed) info that should be followed.
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Re: Failed wall inspection for installing cut in box in fire
Paul
I'll have to look up the beginning of chapter 7 when I get back to the office on Monday. And you guys thought that inspectors couldn't be seperated from their code books.
Anyway, in chapter 7 it does mention penetrations as being protected by a tested system, however the exception allows steel outlet boxes to be installed without protection. I should have posted the section number.
Someday I think everyone is supposed to be on the ICC, at least that was the intent of merging the big three codes together. Of course CA will be one edition behind.
Sam
The hose stream test does not correlate to a firefighters hose. When an assembly is tested, it is exposed to fire in an oven for the specified time, such as 1 hour. The assembly is then removed and sprayed with a hose. The assembly has to maintain integrity to obtain the 1 hour rating. The details of flame temp, water pressure I don't remember, but that's the gist of it.
Rodger
The architect chooses the assembly to use in the design of the bldg. The UBC has some, UL has hundreds, and there are others. As long as the assembly is classified (not listed) by a NRTL then it will be approved by the bldg dept. Assemblys are classified (at least by UL) because it has to be constructed in the field whereas a circuit breaker is completely assembled when it leaves the factory. The UBC requires penetrations to be tested to a UBC standard which mirrors the UL standard for the same. I do not believe the word listed is used.
Bob
Your right, UL is not mentioned in the UBC. In the UBC, UL is not very big. ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) and UL did not play well together in the past. I asked the question at seminars and got the shuffle off. However maybe this has changed with the ICC.
Paul
I'll have to look up the beginning of chapter 7 when I get back to the office on Monday. And you guys thought that inspectors couldn't be seperated from their code books.
Anyway, in chapter 7 it does mention penetrations as being protected by a tested system, however the exception allows steel outlet boxes to be installed without protection. I should have posted the section number.
Someday I think everyone is supposed to be on the ICC, at least that was the intent of merging the big three codes together. Of course CA will be one edition behind.
Sam
The hose stream test does not correlate to a firefighters hose. When an assembly is tested, it is exposed to fire in an oven for the specified time, such as 1 hour. The assembly is then removed and sprayed with a hose. The assembly has to maintain integrity to obtain the 1 hour rating. The details of flame temp, water pressure I don't remember, but that's the gist of it.
Rodger
The architect chooses the assembly to use in the design of the bldg. The UBC has some, UL has hundreds, and there are others. As long as the assembly is classified (not listed) by a NRTL then it will be approved by the bldg dept. Assemblys are classified (at least by UL) because it has to be constructed in the field whereas a circuit breaker is completely assembled when it leaves the factory. The UBC requires penetrations to be tested to a UBC standard which mirrors the UL standard for the same. I do not believe the word listed is used.
Bob
Your right, UL is not mentioned in the UBC. In the UBC, UL is not very big. ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) and UL did not play well together in the past. I asked the question at seminars and got the shuffle off. However maybe this has changed with the ICC.
- Status