Maybe someone here can help me out with this. According to the IRC, "Wall and ceiling finishes shall have a smoke-developed index of not greater than 450." Also, "Wall and ceiling finishes shall have a flame-spread classification of not greater than 200". Both these test are done in accordance with ASTM E 84. Most, if not all icf's meet this criteria (I assume the only reason they are drywalled is for the 20 minute fire rating) I assume that if someone studded out their basement with wood studs, they would need to be drywalled to pass inspection. I looked at the flame spread of wood/joists and they are similar to foam. (both foam and wood meet the smoke development and flame spread ratings) With that said, why is it that a "litedeck" basement clg would need to be drywalled, but regular wood joists don't?

I'm sure I am missing something here. Hopefully someone can fill in the blank(s)


Bunt

Without actually looking it up, something in the code does say ALL foam must be covered, and if I remember correctly it has to do with the toxicity of the foam while under fire.

You don't have to use drywall, you can get away with plywood if you want.

I believe it says all wood should be covered as well. If so, then why are the ceilings of all basements not drywalled?(Unless steel joists are used)

Bunt

Where you located? I have a California Building Code and an Ontario Building Code book here, It might take a day or two but I'll find it.

Now that I look back, I should have given the thread a different title,...oh well.

Anyway,......a few months ago a new construction home which has been sitting for a year or so sold. (Actually my next door neighbor) The basement was a poured foundation.  The builder agreed to stud out the basement for the new homeowner to finish at a later date.  I'm not sure how this all exactly happened, but I believe the inspector went thru for the final inspection and told the builder that the studs in the basement needed to be covered. This is when I questioned why floor joists were not covered. I guess I assumed the building inspector was correct,......but I couldn't find anything specific in the code. Wood and foam both meet the flame spread and smoke dev requirements,.....so I assumed they should be treated similarly. Chris you have a point with the toxicity of foam though,...even though I didn't see anything in the code with respect to toxicity.

PS....i am in Michigan
Bunt

 

In some areas of the country, a builder can drywall the basement or install a sprinkler just in the basement. 

 

Flame spread characteristics are different in vertical and horizontal planes. For instance, I plan to use Sealection 500 foam in my attic on the roof and gable walls. Because the attic will be connected to the living space via air circulation I have to meet the flammability requirement of the IRC. The foam by itself is OK as applied on the underside of the roof but has to be coated on the gable walls. This is spelled out in the ICC-ES report for the foam.

I  think the BI requirement to cover the studs in the basement that you mention may be a local requirement, or an individual BI interpretation. If not, then it's because of the vertical vs. horizontal thing. I've got the IRC but since I haven't been concerned about exposed studs I haven't looked for it specifically. I will have bare stud pony walls in my conditioned crawl space though. The BI didn't raise any concern about them when he reviewed my plan for the building permit, but he did ask about the flammability of the foam insulation I had shown covering the footers. I plan to use exterior sheet rock to cover the ICF foam on the crawl space walls. Just like the attic, the crawl space will be connected to the living space by air circulation.

Covering exposed foam is a distinct requirement in the IRC above and beyond the usual flame and smoke spread requirements. I had to read and study the IRC a half dozen times before it finally sank in.

Flame and smoke spread requirements for attic and crawl space are totally different depending on whether they're integral to the living space or not.

Mac, why did you choose Sealection and not their closed-cell product or a soy-based foam? Was it a cost/benefit thing?

Because Sealection has got to be ~R-3.3/inch, whereas their HeatLok is R-6.24/inch and it's Class 1, unlike most other closed-cell. Open-cell is susceptible to air circulation reduction of its effectiveness (not even considered in the R-value rating), and it provides no structural support to the building.

P.S. - Has ne1 used a pour-in foam? Seems like this could burst the wall if it hardens on top first, or at least pour out outlet boxes like a waterfall. What about when firebreaks are in the wall? Burstage? How to get the dose right? What product? Know of a soy-based pour-in?

I didn't know about Heatlok, but looking at the web site it appears to be a Canadian only product. There is no ICC-ES report on it. Sealection 500 is the only foam I can find with an ICC-ES report that rates it suitable to be exposed in an attic which is connected to the living space, and that is only when the gable and knee wall applications are coated with Andek Firegard Intumescent Coating. The ICC-ES reports for both BioBased and Icynene foams require the foam to have the 15 thermal barrier added if the attic is connected to the living space. I'm not inclined to try to hang sheet rock over 8" of foam with a cloud-like surface and the 2 x 4s buried under 6 1/2" of foam.

If you know of another foam system that meets the 15 minute requirement let me know. Right now Sealection 500 with Andek is the only one I've found. I don't think air circulation will be an issue when the stuff is 10' - 12" thick!!

There's been a lot of discussion on the JLC Online forum about open cell vs. closed cell, particularly when it's applied directly to the roof underside. One of the greatest criticisms of closed cell in that application is roof leaks can go undetected for a long enough time to allow significant rot to set in. Open cell lets you know fairly soon there's a leak up above.

AirKrete and other mineral based foam. Totally fireproof.
Take a look at the video on their website.

Yeah, I couldn't find an ICC report for HeatLok either... then again I couldn't find one for Firegard.

Here's an illuminating thread on the subject, which pretty much confirms what I thought.

However, always having to cover closed-cell is predicated on it not meeting Class 1, as has been the case until HeatLok. Since HeatLok meets Class 1 it should be treated as open-cell, and you should be able to use it in the attic, maybe even without Firegard or Contego. And Firegard is going to waterproof the foam anyway, if it's not already closed-cell.

That's probably because Firegard isn't really a standalone product. It's always used on top of something else. I have an ASTM E84 report for it dated Jan, 2005. Probably got it off Andek web site.

Is Heatlok distributed in the US? If so, where? I don't find any references to US distribution on the Heatlok web site.

I plan to have to have the foam contractor put Firegard on the gable walls only. It's not required on the roof by their ICC report.

AirKrete looks interesting but it doesn't appear to be 'sticky', i.e., they don't show any applications of it on the underside surface of a roof or similar. Also, why do they show a vapor barrier in conjunction with it in some of their pics? Makes me wonder about its air and vapor permeability.

Wow, I like this Air-Krete teslastones, thanks. Has a higher R-value than open-cell, plus I am willing to bet that it has thermal mass for storage and thus thermal inertia! Very good qualities for insulation, and very ICF-like. You'd need 8" of it to meet Code's R-31.

Only things are:
- it is very slow to apply;
- it would be difficult to apply in tight attic spaces
- and it's not too sticky so may not do for the underside of roof sheathing.

Anyone who has experience with it, please comment.

Mac that material you saw is a lathe type material, only for holding the Air-Krete in place for vertical walls. I find diametrically conflicting statements about whether it is waterproof or not.

Here's a blurb from Wikipedia:
R-3.9 per inch. Non-hazardous. Is the only foam not restricted to a depth of application. Fireproof - will not smoke at all upon direct contact with flame; is a four-hour firewall in the State of Connecticut. Great for sound deadening; does not echo like other foams. Environmentally friendly. Non-expansive (good for existing homes where interior sheathing is in place). Fully sustainable: Consists of magnesium oxide and air, made from magnesium oxide extracted from seawater. Blown with air (no CFCs, HCFCs or other harmful blowing agents). Nontoxic, even during application. Does not shrink or settle. Zero VOC emission. Chemically inert (no known symptoms of exposure per MSDS). Insect resistant. Mold Proof. Insoluble in water. Disadvantages: Expensive. Fragile at low densities as are needed to achieve the quoted R value.

Mac, HeatLok's App Guide says:
HEATLOK 217 has been tested in accordance to the ASTM E84 and a Class I rating has
been obtained for 3 inches. In applications requiring ICC code compliance, the maximum
thickness allowed is 3 inches since this product has been tested to three inches.

So at best it would be applied for a max of ~R-19. Although this would be an airtight seal, far better than batt of the same rating, it wouldn't meet Code so I guess a layer of open-cell over it.

I have no doubt it is distributed in the US, but you have to ask using their rinky-dink webform. Likely ICC is pending, as there's no word.

It looks like Demilec has some third graders designing their web site! www.heatlok.com is a combo English/Chinese site with a limited amount of info about Heatlok. The tech sheet, the only tech info I can find, is written specifically for Canada but it shows the address of the Demilec home office in Arlington, TX.

I did find this on www.demilec.com.

The sales of DEMILEC (USA) depend primarily on the following specialty polyurethane systems:

1. SEALECTION 500 (semi-rigid foam insulation, 100% water blown)
2. ELASTOPUR (prepolymer binders used to agglomerate recycled rubber tire granules)
3. HEATLOK, Roofing foams and Pour-in-place foams (rigid foam insulation, blown with HCFC 141b)

You'll notice they're lising Heatlok as a roofing foam and pour in place. It probably wouldn't stick to the roof either. It's heavy stuff too, about 15 pcf compared to Sealection at about 0.5 pcf.

I think I'll stick with Sealection. It does what I want it to do and the documents are available to keep the BI happy! I'm planning on R-38 on the roof and R-25 on the gable walls. That's the standard set by the Northwest Energy Star Program although I won't be getting an Energy Star cert. They don't have program guidelines that include using a crawl space as a supply duct and circulating air from crawl to living to attic.

I don't find any thickness limitation with Sealection, which doesn't make sense because limitations in the flame-testing equipment deny Heatlok any thicker than 3".

I am interested to learn more about Air-Krete, particularly about application in rafters, and have an inquiry in to them.

First of all let me assure you I do not sell Airkrete or work for them. I am an independant research/developement lab working with ceramic cements, geopolymeric binders, hydrolytic cements and yes, even good ole portland cement.
I make a product similar to Airkrete in that it is a mineral base foam which does not have all of the negative aspects other foams do. I do not sell this at present as to do so would take me away from my research but I have trained a few people how to make it and apply it.
Since I have worked with airkrete and have experience with similar products I can say that the fears of it not staying wherever it is placed are unfounded. I can spray my stuff overhead at 3" with no sluffing or drooping. The adhesion to all substrates --even steel--is very good. (higher than most polymers and as high as a low-grade epoxy)
Even soy based foam is still mostly urethane--thus joined at the waist to the petroleum industry. Airkrete and my foam are made from mineral dirivatives.
Keene and Bruce Christopher at Airkrete have been doing this technology since the late '80's as I recall so they have a great track record.

Bunt, I'm also from Mi and yes you do have to drywall. Drywall only no tape. Go vertical with no glue if you are doing any walls, but go permanent on the ceilings. Was this a R-Value job, or from Arvid?

Dave

So my application would be in attic rafters of varying inverted angles, where Code calls for R-31. Surely 8" couldn't be applied all at once, so maybe application in two 'lifts'? Wait for the first to gel, and then the second?

Why does Air-Krete show it being applied through a mesh lathe, apparently to hold it in place, if it stays put? In their pictorial case study they have a vapor barrier up, and are pitifully trying to use plywood apparently to hold in its bulge as its injected?

It is very slow to go on. Is there any hope for speedier application?

It's not important to me if you are a producer... alternative sources are always good. Where can I get more info about materials and equipment?

Quantum,
See if you can get answers from Mr. Christopher at Aikrete first. He will have to inform you about what they do with their product and why. I can tell you that with mine we could do all in one pass but then I am not in the open market with all of the other testing like Airkrete has done.
I could tell them what to do to change the limiting factors on their product but, since I make my living by providing answers to these type of issues, I would have to be commisioned and paid to do so.
The few small limiting factors with Airkrete are things that can be dealt with when you get firePROOF in return.