I just received a news article from the Toronto Sun about a 3 alarm blaze in downtown Toronto on Nov 9/10 and the fire department is quoted as saying the 'Unfortunately, when the fire burned the Styrofoam away, and there's no structure to support it, it makes it very unsafe and unstable'

It is disappointing to read articles such as this and I see it as a black eye for the ICF industry as a whole. The ICF itself has noting to do structurally plus it was a 3 alarm blaze. The article also talks about the walls being filled with concrete and the floors, walls and roof are made of wood. There is no mention of the walls continuing to be stable (minus the foam) nor does it mention the condition of the wood framing members.

Is anyone here in the Toronto area? I for one would be curious of the condition of the structures after the blaze. Unfortunately there was a fatality, it appears the units were unoccupied and the homeless were residing there to get out of the cold. Current speculation is this person had lit a fire inside to keep warm (This is apparently a common practice according to the articles writer).

My first thought of the structural issue is how was the floor system tied to the ICF? If anyone has more information or additional comments please help us out here. I would like to know if ICFLC connectors were used, or if it was anchor bolts; and if anchor bolts were used was there positive contact between the concrete and rim board.

Thanks,

Chris

Article apparently is no longer available on their web site even though I found it listed in a search.

I only have the newspaper clipping a family member sent me, I no longer reside in the area but do keep up on current events, I will try and scan and post it over the weekend

Keep checking this one.

Dave

Chris:

Fires in ICF are actually quite common, the problem with the ICFLC or anchor bolts, as I have been trying to hammer home on this site, is a lack of fire blocking capability between floors and roofs.  Simpson and the ICF manufacturers should take the time to develope proper details to prevent this, as in the case of an ICF the problem is not burning to death, its asphixiation from the EPS fumes which take over extreamly quickly.

Without fire blocking, this is made worse, by rapid expansion through the building, which is probably why this was a 3 alarm fire.

Mark Ross

Mark, If I where you I wouldn't take credit for something you say that you have been trying to tell the ICF manufacturers and here on this post when we all know it is addressed on there ICCES reports in detail. WHATS YOUR TRUE POINT? You surely are not pointing out something we don't already know, just something we don't want to point out!

Dave

 

 What is the TRUE point!

Their is a problem with the lack of fire blocking on a wood floor joist connection using a rim joist.

Why don't we wish to point that out.

Lets just look the other way and it will go away. I don't use them.

A solid connection to the walls concrete to a concede floor is one way, A steal track on the bottom of rim joist into the concrete is a easy fix for this.

 On an exposed tgi floor ( code approved for basements) the fire will weaken it in no time. 

If you use 5/8 rock on it will push the fire out to the next weak point.

The days of balloon framing with out fire blocking has been over for years, what is the difference on this?

In time this should change also but it dose not need to be a black eye for icfs just a proactive correction in how we build with them.

The code will change after bad things happen to some one.
 
Just building to pass code so the price will get you in the bid war is NOT going to change this. 

 That is my true point!

Price dose not equal value and just building to code is just a passing grade ( a D- in the grade book)

What grade would you like on your home, or the one your are building?

Sincerly,

Scott Woulf

Woulf C C

I am unclear on the fireblocking issue.  Is it because fire can go thru the foam between the rim joist and concrete?  Thanks.   John

Sorry you feel that way, however it is a large problem, as for solutions, a simple metal hat channel between the horizontal rows of blocks, installed behind the ledger board solves the floor problem, with a full width top plate on top of the wall to prevent fire from spreading to attics, will suffice for CODE required fire blocking. Its cheap and easy. I am not generating a problem here, just advising and solving. On a previous forensic investigation, three years ago, one of the key issues was the simpson ICF ledger board hangers, which was one aspect of several issues, (the case by the way was won, not lost) of which one of the recommendations that was derived out of the state court suit, was that fire blocking is a code requirement and must be considered in ICF construction.

You may want to wish it away, however remember that fire can travel, in under a minute, 10' up a wall, between the drywall and the concrete. Also dont forget that although the concrete provides a barrier to the fire, the thick black fumes from the plastic ties and EPS foam being consumed, has a very high early smoke developed issue, that is highly toxic. The EPS may burn with less toxic output, however the plastics used in the ties by the industry do not.

What is discerning is that many people do not cover the EPS in basements or crawlspaces, or areas such as under stair platforms, in floor joists, or mechanical rooms, which are the locations where a good portion of fires start. Proper fire blocking provides for a very safe system, in the event of a fire. In Quatar, a major 40 story building, which had a curtain wall of encapsulated EPS, caught fire on the exterior, which burned very quickly, and the smoke and heat was extremely intense. Because of this, the country outlawed EPS foam for building insulation. The exterior EPS foam, treated with a fire retardant, burned so hot, so quickly, that within seconds it gained momentum, and the theoretically fire retardant material, burned under its own fuel (the substructure was reinforced concrete).

However this does not mean that EPS has to be considered a dangerous material to work with, it simply needs to have, like any other material, conditions of use, that ensure it meets the safety requirements for buildings. ICF's are still, by far, a safer way to build a home or commercial structure....If done properly.

JConR-Yes the fire can travel vertically very fast through this space, by closing it off, the fire is slowed down, sometimes stopped at this location, as well as at locations such as tee walls or sill plates, which may be of less width than the overall wall thickness.

Mark Ross

Mark

Can you post a detail of this fire blocking? If not I have sent you a PM with my e-mail address as well.

This topic hits somewhat close to home for me. I had a fire almost 4 years ago, it was an older house, candle was knocked over and I was more concerned about getting the kids out then saving the structure. Within 45 mins the whole house was engulfed in flames. This was not an ICF house, CMU foundation with stick frame walls, floor and roof. Well the following day when the fire was finally out it turned out since the previous owner finished the basement he straped the ceiling down and that made a perfect chase for the flames to run. The roof could have also prevented fire spread if a couple of fire walls had been built up there. That really made me think long and hard about building practices.

I am just getting ready to start a new home for a client; the house is 110' from one end to the other and I will be fire blocking (Densglass) the trusses every 40' even though it is not required in the permit. I usually embed my floorjoists but Mark's idea has me intrigued now. I wish the client would consider a coreslab or insuldeck (litedeck) for the second floor area.

Sooooo, Mark & others, would you endorse my plan to cover the styrofoam in the crawl space w/ exterior drywall? I expect this to provide a pretty good, though probably not absolute, fire barrier. I have two reasons for using exterior drywall. First, the IRC requires exposed foam plastic insulation in a crawl space be covered with an ignition barrier (see quoted portion below) and drywall is about the easiest to install and least expensive of the approved materials. The reason for using exterior gyp board is I plan to install it on the walls after the ledger board is in place and before I install the floor. It'll be a lot easier to work on the walls at that point. But that means the gyp board will be exposed to the weather until the subfloor is installed. The exterior gyp board can be exposed up to 6 months. Seems like a sensible approach to me.

Here's the IRC requirement.

R314.5.4 Crawl spaces. The thermal barrier specified in
Section R314.4 is not required where crawlspace access is
required by Section R408.3 and where entry is made only
for service of utilities and the foam plastic insulation is protected
against ignition using one of the following ignition
barrier materials:
1. 1.5-inch-thick (38 mm) mineral fiber insulation;
2. 0.25-inch-thick (6.4 mm) wood structural panels;
3. 0.375-inch (9.5 mm) particleboard;
4. 0.25-inch (6.4 mm) hardboard;
5. 0.375-inch (9.5 mm) gypsum board; or
6. Corrosion-resistant steel having a base metal thickness
of 0.016 inch (0.41 mm).
The above ignition barrier is not required where the foam
plastic insulation has been tested in accordance with Section
R314.6.

Smartest thing in the world you could have done. I don't remember the exact numbers now, but one thing that was stressed very strongly in fire videos I used to see at work was the once a smoke detector goes off you have no more than something like 90 seconds to 2 minutes to get out of the house before toxic gases will immobilize you.

Woudn't a steel SIP panel with an.019 skin fit the bill?

Wolf: No there is not a problem with the lack of fire blocking in ICF manufactures details! That was exactly the point I was making. Mark always seems only to post to issues where he can pat his back and say " I've been the driving force behind fire blocking, and blah blah! As I stated, all ICCES reports by ICF manufactures covers this issue in detail, and you are not stating anything the knowledgeable don't already know, just trying to push the ART chant!

Also I don't feel this is an issue that should be discussed here on this forum where inquisitive uneducated consumers might all of a sudden run for cover which seems to be some sort of scare tactic. Furthermore, right or wrong if there's a fire in a structure stick or ICF that burns long enough to drop the floor system due to no fire blocking, either all the occupants are out or they are dead from asphyxiation whether its ICF or stick.

I'm not saying people shouldn't fire block an ICF but the method shown in ICCES reports are to time consuming. A simple slit cut in the foam to concrete depth at the bottom of floor rim joist before rim installation, and then insert a 3" wide by 16 ga. metal strip that laps onto the bottom of the rim by a 1/2" is a great alternative.

Again, I only wish you ART guys where more pro-active in answering post than trying to claim the holly grail for what ever reason Mark and his cousin Doug A. get out of it.

Dave

The key is in the design fire resistance, if a 15 minute barrier is all that is required, between floors, then it would work, but each department has differing criteria, so I could not state wether or not you are OK. As for the hat channel, I have no details, as we concentrate on concrete floors, the solution, however is a 2.5" hat channel, which is put in between the courses of block, at the ledger level. You have to cut the upper connection between the blocks to get it in, however it does the job, and many of my friends have done this very successfully, as it is at the top of the pour, and bottom of the next pour usually. Just a horizontal U or C channel which is the width of the eps foam, will suffice. Low cost and an easy fix, solves issues with form interlock after a pour as well.

Mark Ross

I have had a fire in an ICF project that was completed and the owners where living in it. Unfortunately when I post on here I'm home and those photos are not in my lap top. It was ruled as arson immediately because it was a gasoline induced fire that someone poured through out the house and lit when they where not home. The owner was gone along with one of his 3 vehicles. The fire burnt quickly but the ICF contained the fire to the inside and it was a total loss.

The fire martial where very impressed that it contained the fire within the walls and they seen it as a blessing for them. It never had a flame that came out the side due to the ICF walls and it burnt straight up only, they said it was the safest fire they had seen. I got there a few days latter and they had tore the rear exterior wall of the house and scooped all the contents out of the basement and into containers and sent them off to the lab.

I had gotten around the rear just in time to look inside and see the results threw a few cracks in the fence. They had rebuilt a temporary wall out of stick and ICF to keep people out. What I seen was impressive. 95% of the drywall was still on the exterior walls of the house. There was no issue with the fire blocking because the fire had destroyed the ceilings. (wood) The fire did not burn behind the next story drywall and some of the base trim was even still in place. It appeared that the simpson joist hangers (not ICFVL) melted out and the fire burnt straight up.

From my observation a fire block wouldn't have changed any thing because the hangers for the joist on the rim melted and fell immediately causing the joist to collapse on to the floor below. It took the fire right to the basement level. Right or wrong I believe even if you had a 6" tapper top on the lower level, and a 4" upper which we do quite commonly now, which is a total fire stop would have resulted in the same ending.

Dave

Pat his back eh, I suggest you look at the wisconsin state court records and investigate a little, back in 2004 and 2005, when the fire blocking issue was recorded in the state court documents, stating the case and name of the expert in the case, as well as the issues that where attributed to the case.  However your concern with the "ART" guys is rather unjust.  Sorry if you feel otherwise, however ART has not been functioning for a while now, so it would be a bit of a suprise if I was pushing ART guys.  We are as pro-acrtive in answering posts as we can be, we are not here to give a specific solution only suggest what is needed, so that others can think of thier own solutions.  The idea is to get people to think, not give them the answers.  Thinkers tend to become much better installers.  If a teacher simply expects the students to reguritate information back to them, the student has learned only what the teacher puts forth.  However is the teacher instills the need for creative research or thinking, then the teacher has a student who can take education into knowledge.  Being slightly vauge in a post is a good thing, as it instills the need for the reader to think, as only the issue is presented in its entirety, with no solution.  Now the reader has to think about how to address the issue, and from this, new ideas are formed.  These new ideas move the entire industry forward.

As with yourself dave, you have a lot of good ideas, and these need to be discussed in an open forum, where people can learn and think.  Your agressive approace to what we represent, helps in a few ways.  First it brings the lurkers and posters back to the forum to read, primarily out of a slightly morbid interest (most people like a good slamming, which I am more than happy to take).  Secondly, it brings out competition, which leads to information sharing, from which we all gain benifit, not just the posters, as each poster trys to give better solutions and tear into others responces, which means that the solution, and the problem solving of each possible solution, gets covered more entirely, which leads to very solid solutions to issues.  If all I ever had to do to get a good solution to a problem was to post a vauge, arbitrary and suggestive critisism, then I go for this solution.  ICFweb has taught me more than you can every know, and I will always push each individual.  You can dislike, or even hate me all you want, but what this does, generally, is force all of us to consider, and improve our ways of ICF construction.  Discussion is the means to the ultimate end.

There are some people around who have been delving into the problems, in an effort to build a better product, you cant ignore the issues with ICF, which is a better way to build, and a vastly superior improvement over other types of construciton, however you cannot ignore the issues, or think that you can do every job.  Always remember, that there is someone better than ourselves, most are lurkers, I am just another ICF person,  the "ART guys" are just other ICF people, all with different views and opinions.  What an "ART Guy" is is someone, dedicated to collecting and sharing knowledge, information and friendship, in a trade that has always seen contention.  We are not the guru's or gods of the industry by far, I know a lot better installers than myself, or any of us.

Mark Ross

Oh fer cryin' out loud...


I see. You mean this forum has taught you more than we can ever know when people are vague and don't give answers, you mean?

I don't know what ART is, nor what you guys' history or baggage is, but your statements Mark are internally contradictory and appear dishonest.

This confirms what I'd come to suspect, that some here are just taking.

Gentlemen : Give the pot shots a rest.

This is a "Life Saving" topic, and there has been some good information exposed. My compliments.

Fire blocking is important to consider if you wood frame your floors.

I can't say it is really on the radar screen of the ICF manufacturers installation manuals, either.

Should be.

Can anybody post some pics of "blocking" methods , they've used ?

It's worth a thousand words. LOL.

let me clarify the interpretation of one line that was singled out about what the ICFweb has taught me.  I meant it to reflect a common statement that ICF has taught me more than you would realize it has taught me, not about what you know, there is no doubt you are knowledgeable, I have learned from some of your postings, and most of the posters in this forum.  I apologize if this statement was taken in a different context, as it was not meant to be degrading in any way.

As for picks of Blocking methods, we primarily use concrete floor systems now, and the blocking is built in the pour, as the floor is poured integral with the ICF walls.  As such I don't have any pics of the described method, however I will ask around and see if I can get some.  I have included a copy of a standard floor system you would all recognize to illistrate the advantages of concrete floors with respect to fire blocking between levels