Public Input No. 32-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Global Input ... · PDF filePublic Input No. 32-NFPA...

12/13/12

1/41submittals.nf pa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp

Public Input No. 32-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Global Input ]

Add new reference in C.1 to read as follows: AMCA Intl, 2011 Guide for Commissioning and Periodic Performance Testing ofFire, Smoke and Other Life Safety Related Dampers to Annex C InformationalReferences.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

There is widespread inconsistency on how to test life safety dampers. This document is intended to provide a resource document to help eliminate unnecessary steps to proper inspection and testing procedure, while ensuring that damper testing is useful and yields inspection and maintenance information that supports their proper function in the event of an emergency. The entire document is not intended to be published in the 90A annex, but has been re-printed here for information purpose, and review by the TC and other interested parties. Guide for Commissioning and Periodic Performance Testing of Fire, Smoke and Other Life Safety Related Dampers (2011) Copyrighted and published by AMCA International (www.amca.org) Purpose Fire Dampers, Smoke Dampers, Combination Fire Smoke Dampers, Ceiling Radiation Dampers, and other types of dampers that perform as part of a building’s Fire Protection or Life-Safety System must function properly during a fire or life-safety emergency. Proper installation and periodic performance testing are required to ensure these dampers function as intended in a fire emergency. The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations for the proper commissioning of Fire and Life Safety Related Dampers and to describe the appropriate intervals and methods for performing periodic performance testing of these dampers. Background Life Safety Dampers are designed to perform a number of functions in a building’s HVAC, Fire and/or Smoke Control System and are an integral part of the overall life-safety system within the building. Generally, Fire Dampers are designed to close and prevent the spread of fire through an opening in a fire resistive barrier. Ceiling Radiation Dampers are designed to close and reduce the transfer of heat through an opening in the ceiling membrane of floor-ceiling or roof-ceiling assembly. Refer to the specified ceiling design for details regarding penetrations. Smoke Dampers operate to prevent the spread of smoke by closing to stop airflow or by opening to exhaust smoke. They can also be opened or closed to create pressure differences (as in an engineered smoke control system) to reduce the spread of smoke. Combination Fire Smoke Dampers perform the dual role of both Fire Dampers and Smoke Dampers. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has developed and maintains standards for the testing, qualification, and appropriate labeling of Fire Dampers (UL 555), Smoke Dampers (UL 555S), Combination Fire Smoke Dampers (UL 555 and UL 555S) and Ceiling Radiation Dampers (UL 555C & UL 263). Manufacturers of these dampers, who have complied with these UL requirements, provide classified and labeled dampers for installation where required in HVAC and Engineered Smoke Control Systems. Building Codes and several NFPA and ASHRAE Standards identify where Fire, Smoke and Ceiling Radiation Damper s are required to be installed in a building’s HVAC and/or Smoke Control System. Architects and Design Engineers incorporate

Code required dampers in their building designs but also may incorporate additional requirements

12/13/12 TerraView™


Code required dampers in their building designs but also may incorporate additional requirements

depending on a building’s specific purpose and intended function. Commissioning or Acceptance Testing The term Commissioning is used to define an inspection process to determine if all components of a building are operating as intended by the building’s design. Ensuring that a building’s mechanical system, its HVAC System, and any Smoke Control or other Life-Safety related systems operate properly (including all Fire and Life-Safety Related Dampers), and documenting their proper operation is the result of the Commissioning process. This process is also known as Acceptance Testing. Below are the AMCA recommended checklists for the commissioning of Fire and Life-Safety Related Dampers. For specific installation requirements of the brand and model damper being commissioned, the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions shall be referenced. Fire Dampers and Combination Fire Smoke Dampers 1. Positioning of the Damper in the Opening – Unless specifically allowed by the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions, the centerline of the fire damper’s frame shall be located in the plane of the fire rated assembly. 2. Damper Sleeve – Unless the damper frame is wide enough to provide for direct attachment of retaining angles, all fire dampers shall be mounted in a sleeve fabricated per the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions. The sleeve shall not extend more than 6 inches beyond the wall or floor opening unless there is an actuator or factory mounted access door on the damper. When an actuator or factory mounted access door is installed, the sleeve shall notextend more than 16 inches beyond the wall or floor opening. The sleeve is still limited to extending 6 inches beyond the wall or floor opening on the side opposite the actuator or factory mounted access door. 3. Clearance between Damper and Wall/Floor Opening – Most dampers are tested with defined clearances between the damper’s sleeve and the wall or floor opening. Unless otherwise indicated in the installation instructions, the annular space between the sleeve of the damper and the wall/floor opening should not be filled with firestop materials such as fill, void or cavity materials. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the specific clearance requirements. 4. Securing Damper and Sleeve to the Wall/Floor Openings – Most approved damper installation methods require the use of retaining angles to secure the damper in the wall or floor opening. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the required material gauge of the retaining angles, the required overlap between the retaining angles and the wall or floor, and the spacing and type of fasteners to be used. 5. Duct to Sleeve Connections – Dampers are tested and approved to use specific methods for connecting the damper sleeve to adjoining ductwork. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the allowable duct to sleeve connections. 6. Damper Access – Access to the dampers shall be provided. Access shall be large enough to allow inspection and maintenance of the damper and its operating parts. The access points shall be permanently identified on the exterior by a label having letters not less than ½ inch in height reading: FIRE/SMOKE DAMPER or FIRE DAMPER. 7. Damper Flow and Pressure Ratings – For dynamic fire dampers and combination fire smoke dampers, it shall be verified that the system airflow and pressure are within the damper’s ratings 8. Operation of the Damper – After the damper is installed it shall be cycled to ensure proper operation. The operation test performed as part of the commissioning process shall follow the same procedure described in the Periodic Performance Testing section below. Smoke Dampers 1. Positioning of the Damper Relative to the Opening – The centerline of the damper shall be mounted within 24 inches of the opening it is protecting. In addition, no ductwork shall branch-off between the damper and the wall or floor opening it is protecting. 2. Sealing the Damper Frame to the Ductwork – Many damper installations require that the damper frame be sealed to the ductwork it is being installed in. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions to determine if this requirement applies and to determine


the allowable sealants. 3. Damper Access – Access to the dampers shall be provided. Access shall be large enough to allow inspection and maintenance of the damper and its operating parts. The access points shall be permanently identified on the exterior by a label having letters not less than ½ inch in height reading: SMOKE DAMPER. 4. Damper Flow and Pressure Ratings – It shall be verified that the system airflow and pressure are within the dampers ratings. 5. Operation of the Damper – After the damper is installed it shall be cycled to ensure proper operation. The operation test performed as part of the commissioning process shall follow the same procedure described in the periodic performance testing section below. Ceiling Radiation Dampers 1. Hourly Rating – Ceiling dampers carry a maximum hourly rating for the assembly in which they are installed. Check that the maximum hourly rating of the damper installed is approved for the same hourly rating as the ceiling assembly. 2. Positioning of the Damper in or Over the Penetration – The damper can be installed on top of a steel diffuser, sitting directly on the rated ceiling grid, in a steel duct drop, or supported such that the frame rest at the penetration. Refer to the manufacturer’s installation instructions for the maximum allowed distance that the closed blades are allowed from the bottom of the rated ceiling. In the case of drywall installation, consult instructions for maximum allowed clearance between penetration and damper frame. 3. Thermal Blanket – When a damper is not located directly in the penetration and the damper frame is more than 1 inch smaller than the penetration, then a thermal blanket is normally required to reduce heat transfer across the grille back pan. Refer to the manufacturers installation instructions for the recommended material and size of the thermal blanket. 4. Clearance between Damper, Grille, Duct, and Wall/Floor Opening – Most dampers are tested with defined clearances as specified in their instructions. If not specified, a rule of thumb is to keep tolerances minimal (less than 1/8 inch) between connecting components. If possible, have the largest component extend over the smaller one below it. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the specific clearance requirements. 5. Securing Damper to the Sleeve, Grille, Ductwork – Most of the time, dampers are to be installed so that they are supported by the structural members above them or the ceiling grid. Ceiling dampers are not normally supported by the drywall, gypsum, or ceiling tiles alone. They are normally supported via steel wires, hangers, or duct drops with direct fasteners such as screws, rivets, and bolts. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for therequired material and fasteners. 6. Grille to Damper to Duct Connections – Unless otherwise stated in the manufacturer’s installation instructions, the damper will either lie on the ceiling grid or cover the neck of the diffuser. If connected to duct, the damper should be installed inside the duct connection. 7. Operation of the Damper – After the damper is installed, the fuse link shall be removed and the damper blades allowed to close upon its own mechanics. Cycling the damper ensures proper operation. The operation test performed as part of the commissioning process shall follow the same procedure described in periodic performance testing section below. Periodic Performance Testing Fire Life-Safety related dampers that are properly applied and installed and that have proven the ability to function as intended through a building commissioning process should require no specific on-going maintenance beyond the periodic testing described below to confirm operability. Although the required frequency of this periodic operation testing varies by local jurisdiction, most local requirements reference one of two national standards, either NFPA 80 or NFPA 105. NFPA 80 covers the requirements for fire dampers and NFPA 105 covers the requirements for smoke dampers. Both documents contain the following frequency requirements for periodic operation testing:Each damper shall be tested and inspected one year after installation. The test and inspection frequency shall then be every 4 years, except in hospitals, where the frequency shall be every 6 years. The method used to perform the periodic operation testing depends on the type of damper.



More specifically, it depends on how the damper operates. From an operability standpoint, fire life-safety related dampers fall into one of the two following categories: 1. Dampers Requiring a Fusible Link to Operate – Most Fire Dampers and Ceiling Radiation Dampers, and some Combination Fire Smoke Dampers are held in an open position by a fusible link. The fusible link is designed to melt at a specified temperature allowing gravity or a spring to close the damper. After the fusible link has melted these dampers remain closed until reopened manually and a new fusible link is installed. 2. Dampers That Do Not Require a Fusible Link to Operate – Smoke Dampers, some Fire Dampers and most Combination Fire Smoke Dampers do not use fusible links to operate. These dampers use an electric or pneumatic actuator to operate the damper. Fire Dampers and Combination Fire Smoke Dampers that do not use fusible links use a bi-metallic disc type thermostat to interrupt electrical power or air pressure to the actuator at a specified temperature.Once the electrical power or air pressure is interrupted the spring return feature of the actuator closes the damper.The recommended procedure for performing the periodic operation testing on fusible link operated dampers is described below. As always, the damper manufacturer’s installation and operation instructions should be followed: 1. For safety considerations, ensure that the fan is off. 2. With the damper in the full-open position, remove the fusible link. Care should be taken to ensure that there are no obstructions, including hands, in the path of the damper blades before the fusible link is removed. 3. Once the fusible link is removed, ensure that the damper closes completely without assistance. If the damper is designed with a latch to hold the damper in the full-closed position confirm that the damper latches properly. 4. Return the damper to the full-open position and replace the fusible link. If the link appears damaged, replace with a functionally equivalent link. Periodic Performance Testing for Dampers That Do Not Use a Fusible Link to Operate The recommended procedure for performing periodic operation testing on dampers that do not require a fusible link to operate is described below. Two procedures are described. The first describes the procedure for dampers designed with position indication switches to verify that the damper has reached the full-open and full-closed position These switches can be wired to local or remote control panels or building automation systems (BAS) to indicate if the damper is in the full-open position, the full-closed position, or neither. The second procedure describes the procedure for testing dampers without position indication switches. As always, the damper manufacturer’s installation and operation instructions should be followed. Dampers with Position Indication Wired to Indication Lights, Control Panels or BAS 1. Use the signal from the damper’s position indication device to confirm that the damper is in the full-open position. 2. Remove electrical power or air pressure from the actuator to allow the actuator’s spring return feature to close the damper. 3. Use the signal from the damper’s position indication device to confirm that the damper reaches its full-closed position. 4. Reapply electrical power or air pressure to reopen the damper. 5. Use the signal from the damper’s position indication device to confirm that the damper reaches its full-open position. Dampers without Position Indication 1. Visually confirm that the damper is in the full-open position. 2. Ensure that all obstructions, including hands, are out of the path of the damper blades and then remove electrical power or air pressure from the actuator to allow the actuator’s spring return feature to close the damper. 3. Visually confirm that the damper closes completely 4. Reapply electrical power or air pressure to reopen the damper. 5. Visually confirm that the damper is in the full-open position. In addition to these requirements, NFPA 72 and NFPA 92 describe the periodic testing



requirements for smoke control systems. Dampers that are part of smoke control systems shall be cycled as part of this testing. List of Publications Referenced in this Document UL 555 Standard for Fire Dampers UL 555S Standard for Smoke Dampers UL 555C Standard for Ceiling Dampers UL 263 Standard for Fire Tests of Building and Construction Materials NFPA 80 Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives NFPA 105 Standard for the installation of Smoke Door Assemblies and Other Opening Protectives NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code NFPA 92 Standard for Smoke Control Systems

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name:Vickie Lovell

Organization: InterCode Incorporated

Submittal Date: Wed Jun 27 13:35:35 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-22. The committee agreed and has added the reference.

Copyright Assignment

I, Vickie Lovell, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and

full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and

Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any

publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby

w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this

copyright assignment.

By checking this box I aff irm that I am Vickie Lovell, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright

Assignment and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I

am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and

effect as a handw ritten signature

Public Input No. 39-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Global Input ]

Note: This Proposal originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 90A-12-1 (TIA 1040) issued by the Standards Council on August 9, 2012.

Revise text to read as follows:

4.3.12.1 Egress Corridors.

4.3.12.1.1* Egress corridors in health care nursing and long term care facilities, detentionand correctional, and residential occupancies shall not be used as a portion of a supply,

return, or exhaust air system serving adjoining areas unless otherwise permitted by



return, or exhaust air system serving adjoining areas unless otherwise permitted by

4.3.12.1.3.1 through 4.3.12.1.3.4.

4.3.12.1.2 Air movement between rooms and egress corridors in hospitals, nursingfacilities, and ambulatory care facilities shall be permitted where the transfer of air isrequired for clinical purposes by other standards.

A.4.3.12.1.1 See ANSI/ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170, Ventilation of Health Care Facilities.


The restriction to using corridors in hospitals as a portion of the supply, return or exhaust air system was inadvertently removed from the wording in the 2012 Edition of NFPA 90A. The new wording in NFPA 90A will allow hospitals to use the corridor as a return air plenum. If the corridor is used as a return air plenum, smoke from a fire would be drawn into the corridor by design, creating a hazard by compromising the corridor from being used as an egress path. The use of the corridor as part of the supply, return or exhaust air system was explicitly restricted in hospitals in the 2009 edition of the standard and the modifications proposed by this TIA will again restrict corridors in hospitals from being used as part of the air system. In addition, the air movement between rooms and the egress corridors in nursing facilities will be inadvertently restricted unless the change proposed for paragraph 4.3.12.1.2 is accepted.

Emergency Nature: Without the proposed changes, NFPA 90A will permit hospitals to be constructed using corridors as a return air plenum thereby creating a potentially serious hazard to the occupants.


Submitter Full Name:Peter Larrimer

Organization: Dept. of Veterans Affairs

Submittal Date: Mon Sep 10 13:15:42 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: FR-13-NFPA 90A-2012

Statement: The committee agreed with this change which duplicates the language it approvel inTIA 90A-12-1.


I, Peter Larrimer, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and






By checking this box I aff irm that I am Peter Larrimer, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright






Public Input No. 3-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Chapter NFPA ]

NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 90A-22 (Log #29) which was held fromthe A11 ROC on Proposal 90A-41.


4.3.11.2.6 Materials within a celing cavity plenum exposed to the airflow shallbe (a) noncombustible or (b) exhibit a maximum flame spread index of 25 and amaximum smoke developed index of 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials,or with ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics ofBuilding Materials, or (c) comply with 4.3.11.2.6.1 through 4.3.11.2.6.9, asapplicable.

4.3.11.5.5 Materials within a raised floor plenum exposed to the airflow shall be(a)noncombustible or (b) exhibit a maximum flame spread index of 25 and amaximum smoke developed index of 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials,or with ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics ofBuilding Materials, or (c) comply with 4.3.11.5.5.1 through 4.3.11.5.5.8, asapplicable.


This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement for materials exposed to the airflow in ceiling cavity plenums and raised floor plenums is that they be noncombustible (which is already shown) or be limited combustible (which is the option in 4.3.11.2.6.9 and in 4.3.11.5.5.8) or that they meet a flame spread index of 25 and a smoke developed index of 50 in the ASTM E84/UL 723 test (and that portion is implied but missing from the text). This change does not affect (of course) the requirements for materials of construction of the plenum, electrical wires and cables, optical fiber cables, pneumatic tubing, sprinkler piping, raceways, discrete electrical products, supplementary materials air ducts or air connectors. It is simply clarification consistent with the intent.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship

Public Input No. 19-NFPA 90A-2012 [Section No. 4.3.11.2.6 [Excludingany Sub-Sections]]

Public Input No. 26-NFPA 90A-2012 [Section No. 4.3.11.5.5 [Excludingany Sub-Sections]]


Submitter Full Name:Marcelo Hirschler

Organization: GBH International

Submittal Date: Thu Mar 29 09:22:09 EDT 2012



Committee Statement


Statement: This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement formaterials exposed to the airflow in ceiling cavity plenums and raised floor plenumsis that they be noncombustible (which is already shown) or be limited combustible(which is the option in 4.3.11.2.6.9 and in 4.3.11.5.5.8) or that they meet a flamespread index of 25 and a smoke developed index of 50 in the ASTM E84/UL 723test (and that portion is implied but missing from the text). This change does notaffect (of course) the requirements for materials of construction of the plenum,electrical wires and cables, optical fiber cables, pneumatic tubing, sprinkler piping,raceways, discrete electrical products, supplementary materials air ducts or airconnectors. It is simply clarification consistent with the intent.


I, Marcelo Hirschler, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all

and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem

and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Marcelo Hirschler, and I agree to be legally bound by the above

Copyright Assignment and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking

this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal

force and effect as a handw ritten signature

Public Input No. 4-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Chapter NFPA ]

NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 90A-6 (Log #28) which was held fromthe A11 ROC on Proposal 90A-20.


3.3.21* Noncombustible Material. A material that, in the form in which it is usedand under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, orrelease flammable vapors, when subjected to fire or heat. [101, 2012] Materialsthat are reported as passing ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior ofMaterials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C, shall be considerednoncombustible materials.[220, 2009]

A.3.3.21 A material that is reported as passing ASTM E 136, Standard Test Methodfor Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C, isconsidered a noncombustible material. A material that is reported as complyingwith the pass/fail criteria of ASTM E 136 when tested in accordance with the testmethod and procedure in ASTM E 2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior ofMaterials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750 DegreesC, is considered a noncombustible material.


submittals.nf pa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp


The definition of noncombustible material has been amended in NFPA 101 and 5000 to eliminate the second sentence with the requirements.



Public Input No. 21-NFPA 90A-2012 [Section No. 3.3.21]


Public Input No. 23-NFPA 90A-2012 [New Section after 4.3.13]

Public Input No. 24-NFPA 90A-2012 [New Section after A.4.3.13]




Submittal Date: Thu Mar 29 09:23:45 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-3












Public Input No. 17-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. 2.3.2 ]



2.3.2 ASTM International Publications.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,PA 19428-2959.

ASTM C 411, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Performance of High-Temperature Thermal Insulation, 2005 2011 .

ASTM D 93, Standard Test Methods for Flashpoint by Pensky-Martens Closed CupTester, 2010 2011 .

ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, 2010b 2012 .

ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction andMaterials, 2011 2012 .

ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical TubeFurnace at 750°C, 2009b 2011 .

ASTM E 2231, Standard Practice for Specimen Preparation and Mounting of Pipeand Duct Insulation Materials to Assess Surface Burning Characteristics, 2009.


Standards date updates




Submittal Date: Sun Jun 10 20:01:04 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Standards date updates
















2.3.2 ASTM International Publications.


ASTM C 411, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Performance of High-Temperature Thermal Insulation, 2005.

ASTM D 93, Standard Test Methods for Flashpoint by Pensky-Martens Closed CupTester, 2010.


ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction andMaterials, 2011.



ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnacewith a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750°C, (2009a)


This change puts NFPA 90A in line with what was done for NFPA 101 (and many other documents) in the 2012 cycle. NFPA requirements are that definitions cannot contain requirements and the definitions of noncombustible and limited combustible contain requirements. Therefore this public input proposes to put simply a place holder in chapter 3 (definitions) and place the requirements into Chapter 4, just as was done in NFPA 101 and 5000. The proposed language is identical to the language in NFPA 101. If the technical committee wishes it can simply extract the language from NFPA 101. The corresponding sections are: 3.3.21 would be extracted from 3.3.169.2, 3.3.22 would be extracted from 3.3.169.4, 4.4.1 would be extracted from 4.6.13 and 4.4.2 would be extracted from 4.6.14.




Submittal Date: Mon Jun 18 14:38:13 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: Added. See FR-4
















2.3.6 UL Publications.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.

ANSI/UL 181, Standard for Safety Factory-Made Air Ducts and Air Connectors,2005, Revised 2008.

ANSI/UL 181A, Standard for Safety Closure Systems for Use with Rigid Air Ducts,2005, Revised 2008.

ANSI/UL 181B, Standard for Safety Closure Systems for Use with Flexible AirDucts and Air Connectors, 2005, Revised 2008.

ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2009.

ANSI/UL 555, Standard for Safety Fire Dampers, 2006, Revised 2010.

ANSI/UL 555C, Standard for Safety Ceiling Dampers, 2006, Revised 2010.

ANSI/UL 555S, Standard for Safety Smoke Dampers, 1999, Revised 2010.

ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, 2008, Revised 2010.

ANSI/UL 867, Standard for Safety Electrostatic Air Cleaners, 2000, Revised 2007.

ANSI/UL 900, Standard for Safety Air Filter Units, 2004, Revised 2009.

ANSI/UL 1820, Standard for Safety Fire Test of Pneumatic Tubing for Flame andSmoke Characteristics, 2004, Revised 2009.

ANSI/UL 1887, Standard for Safety Fire Test of Plastic Sprink ler Pipe for VisibleFlame and Smoke Characteristics, 2004, Revised 2009.

ANSI/UL 1995, Standard for Safety Heating and Cooling Equipment, 2003, Revised2008.

ANSI/UL 2024, Standard for Signaling, Optical Fiber and Communication CableRaceway , 2004 Communications Raceways and Cable Routing Assemblies , 2011 ,Revised 2007 2011 .

ANSI/UL 2043, Standard for Safety Fire Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Releasefor Discrete Products and Their Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces,2008.




UL 2024, which previously covered optical fiber and communications raceways, and UL 2024A which previously covered cable routing assemblies, have been merged. UL 2024A has been dropped and the new UL 2024 covers raceways (signaling, optical fiber and communications types) and cable routing assemblies. This Public Input recommends updating the reference to UL 2024.


Submitter Full Name:Frank Peri

Organization: Communications Cable & Connectivity Association

Submittal Date: Wed Jul 18 10:04:01 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: Change made. See FR-5


I, Frank Peri, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full

rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and





By checking this box I aff irm that I am Frank Peri, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright







2.3.6 UL Publications.


ANSI/UL 181, Standard for Safety Factory-Made Air Ducts and Air Connectors,2005, Revised 2008.

ANSI/UL 181A, Standard for Safety Closure Systems for Use with Rigid Air Ducts,2005, Revised 2008.

ANSI/UL 181B, Standard for Safety Closure Systems for Use with Flexible AirDucts and Air Connectors, 2005, Revised 2008 2011 .

ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2009.

ANSI/UL 555, Standard for Safety Fire Dampers, 2006, Revised 2010 2011 .

ANSI/UL 555C, Standard for Safety Ceiling Dampers, 2006, Revised 2010.

ANSI/UL 555S, Standard for Safety Smoke Dampers, 1999, Revised 2010 2011 .

ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, 2008, Revised 2010.

ANSI/UL 867, Standard for Safety Electrostatic Air Cleaners, 2000, Revised2007 2011 .

ANSI/UL 900, Standard for Safety Air Filter Units, 2004, Revised 2009 2010 .

ANSI/UL 1820, Standard for Safety Fire Test of Pneumatic Tubing for Flame andSmoke Characteristics, 2004, Revised 2009.

ANSI/UL 1887, Standard for Safety Fire Test of Plastic Sprink ler Pipe for VisibleFlame and Smoke Characteristics, 2004, Revised 2009.

ANSI/UL 1995, Standard for Safety Heating and Cooling Equipment, 2003, Revised2008 2011 .

ANSI/UL 2024, Standard for Optical Fiber and Communication Cable Raceway,2004, Revised 2007 2011 .

ANSI/UL 2043, Standard for Safety Fire Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Releasefor Discrete Products and Their Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces,2008.


Update referenced standard to most recent edition as indicated.


Submitter Full Name:John Bender

Organization: Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Submittal Date: Wed Apr 18 13:19:47 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Update referenced standard to most recent edition as indicated.





I, John Bender, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and






By checking this box I aff irm that I am John Bender, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright





3.3.21* Limited-Combustible (Material).

Refers to a building construction material not complying with the definition ofnoncombustible material that, in the form in which it is used, has a potential heatvalue not exceeding 8141 kJ/kg (3500 Btu/lb), where tested in accordance withNFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials and thatincludes either of the following: (1) materials having a structural base ofnoncombustible material, with a surfacing not exceeding a thickness of 3.2 mm (1 ? 8 in.) that has a flame spread index not greater than 50; or (2) materials, in theform and thickness used, having neither a flame spread index greater than 25 norevidence of continued progressive combustion, and of such composition thatsurfaces that would be exposed by cutting through the material on any plane wouldhave neither a flame spread index greater than 25 nor evidence of continuedprogressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, StandardTest Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials , or ANSI/UL723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials . See 4.4.2








Committee Statement


Statement: This change puts NFPA 90A in line with what was done for NFPA 101 (and manyother documents) in the 2012 cycle. NFPA requirements are that definitions cannotcontain requirements and the definitions of noncombustible and limited combustiblecontain requirements. Therefore this public input proposes to put simply a placeholder in chapter 3 (definitions) and place the requirements into Chapter 4, just aswas done in NFPA 101 and 5000. The proposed language is identical to thelanguage in NFPA 101. If the technical committee wishes it can simply extract thelanguage from NFPA 101. The corresponding sections are: 3.3.21 would beextracted from 3.3.169.2, 3.3.22 would be extracted from 3.3.169.4, 4.4.1 would beextracted from 4.6.13 and 4.4.2 would be extracted from 4.6.14.













3.3.22* Noncombustible Material.

A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated,will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors whensubjected to fire or heat. Materials that are reported as passing ASTM E 136,Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at750°C , are considered noncombustible materials. See 4.4.1.


This change puts NFPA 90A in line with what was done for NFPA 101 (and many other documents) in the 2012 cycle. NFPA requirements are that definitions cannot contain requirements and the definitions of noncombustible and limited combustible contain requirements. Therefore this public input proposes to put simply a place holder in chapter 3 (definitions) and place the requirements into Chapter 4, just as was done in NFPA 101 and 5000.



The proposed language is identical to the language in NFPA 101. If the technical committee wishes it can simply extract the language from NFPA 101. The corresponding sections are: 3.3.21 would be extracted from 3.3.169.2, 3.3.22 would be extracted from 3.3.169.4, 4.4.1 would be extracted from 4.6.13 and 4.4.2 would be extracted from 4.6.14.





Committee Statement














Public Input No. 19-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. 4.3.11.2.6 [Excluding

any Sub-Sections] ]



Materials within a ceiling cavity plenum exposed to the airflow shall be (a)noncombustible or (b) exhibit a maximum flame spread index of 25 and a maximumsmoke developed index of 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84,Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials , orwith ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics ofBuilding Materials , or (c) comply with 4.3.11.2.6.1 through 4.3.11.2.6.10, asapplicable.


This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement for materials exposed to the airflow in ceiling cavity plenums and raised floor plenums is always considered to be, and should continue to be, that they be noncombustible (which is already shown) or be limited combustible (which is the option in 4.3.11.2.6.9 and in 4.3.11.5.5.8) or that they meet a flame spread index of 25 and a smoke developed index of 50 in the ASTM E84/UL 723 test (and that portion is implied but missing from the text). This same default applies in the International Mechanical Code.

This change does not affect (of course) the requirements for materials of construction of the plenum, electrical wires and cables, optical fiber cables, pneumatic tubing, sprinkler piping, raceways, discrete electrical products, supplementary materials, air ducts or air connectors. It is simply clarification consistent with the intent.

In the absence of this change the default would be for the materials to be noncombustible, which was never the intent. The technical committee clearly noticed that because its committee statement on comment 90A-33 was “The committee concludes that this is a material that would default to the general material requirements”. However, as pointed out by both Dwayne Sloan and myself, the default, if this language is not incorporated into the standard, is that materials that are not specifically mentioned must be noncombustible. At present NFPA 90A sends the user to a section that refers to the ASTM E 84/UL 723 requirements (section 4.3.3) but it applies only to “supplementary materials for air distribution systems”.This was proposed at the last cycle but it came in at the comment stage and was deemed new material and held. It was then proposed as a TIA but it did not get the ¾ majority needed for emergency nature. It received 21 affirmatives, 5 negatives, 1 abstention and 2 non returns on technical merit (20 affirmatives were needed, so that it passed on technical merit) and 19 affirmatives, 8 negatives, 0 abstentions and 2 non returns on emergency nature (21 affirmatives were needed, so that it failed on emergency nature).








Committee Statement

Resolution:



FR-1-NFPA 90A-2012

Statement: This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement formaterials exposed to the airflow in ceiling cavity plenums and raised floor plenumsis always considered to be, and should continue to be, that they be noncombustible(which is already shown) or be limited combustible (which is the option in4.3.11.2.6.9 and in 4.3.11.5.5.8) or that they meet a flame spread index of 25 and asmoke developed index of 50 in the ASTM E84/UL 723 test (and that portion isimplied but missing from the text). This same default applies in the InternationalMechanical Code. This change does not affect (of course) the requirements formaterials of construction of the plenum, electrical wires and cables, optical fibercables, pneumatic tubing, sprinkler piping, raceways, discrete electrical products,supplementary materials, air ducts or air connectors. It is simply clarificationconsistent with the intent. In the absence of this change the default would be for thematerials to be noncombustible, which was never the intent. The technicalcommittee clearly noticed that because its committee statement on comment 90A-33 was “The committee concludes that this is a material that would default to thegeneral material requirements”. However, as pointed out by both Dwayne Sloan andmyself, the default, if this language is not incorporated into the standard, is thatmaterials that are not specifically mentioned must be noncombustible. At presentNFPA 90A sends the user to a section that refers to the ASTM E 84/UL 723requirements (section 4.3.3) but it applies only to “supplementary materials for airdistribution systems”. This was proposed at the last cycle but it came in at thecomment stage and was deemed new material and held. It was then proposed as aTIA but it did not get the ¾ majority needed for emergency nature. It received 21affirmatives, 5 negatives, 1 abstention and 2 non returns on technical merit (20affirmatives were needed, so that it passed on technical merit) and 19 affirmatives, 8negatives, 0 abstentions and 2 non returns on emergency nature (21 affirmativeswere needed, so that it failed on emergency nature).












20/41


any Sub-Sections] ]

Materials within a ceiling cavity plenum exposed to the airflow shall benoncombustible or comply with (a) be noncombustible or (b) exhibit a maximumflame spread index of 25 and a maximum smoke developed index of 50 when testedin accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials , or with ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Methodfor Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or (c) comply with4.3.11.2.6.1 through 4.3.11.2.6.10, as applicable.


The proposed language was the subject of proposed TIA Log No. 1022 which achieved the required 75% vote for Technical Merit ballot but did not pass the Emergency Nature ballot.

This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement for materials exposed to the airflow in ceiling cavity plenums was always considered to be, and should continue to be, that they be noncombustible (which is already in the Standard) or be limited-combustible or that they meet a flame spread index of 25 and a smoke developed index of 50 in teh ASTM E84/UL 723 test. The same default applies in the International Mechanical Code.


Submitter Full Name:William Koffel

Organization: Koffel Associates, Inc.

Affilliation: SPI Wire and Cable Section

Submittal Date: Fri Jun 22 21:56:01 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-1 where the committee made this change.


I, William Koffel, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and






By checking this box I aff irm that I am William Koffel, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright




Public Input No. 34-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. 4.3.11.2.6.4 ]

4.3.11.2.6.4

Optical Signaling, optical fiber and communications and signaling racewaysraceways, and cable routing assemblies shall be listed as having a maximum peakoptical density of 0.50 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and amaximum flame spread distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) or less when tested in accordancewith ANSI/UL 2024, Standard for Signaling, Optical Fiber and CommunicationCable Raceway . Communications Raceways and Cable Routing Assemblies .Cables installed within these raceways and cable routing assemblies shall be listedas plenum cable in accordance with the requirements in 4.3.11.2.6.1.


UL 2024, which previously covered optical fiber and communications raceways, and UL 2024A which previously covered cable routing assemblies, have been merged. UL 2024A has been dropped and the new UL 2024 covers raceways (signaling, optical fiber and communications types) and cable routing assemblies. This Public Input recommends updating the reference to UL 2024, as well as expanding the section to reflect the expanded scope of UL 2024, which now includes signaling raceways, and cable routing assemblies. UL 2024 has identical fire test requirements for raceways (signaling, optical fiber and communications types) and cable routing assemblies.The parallel Section 4.3.11.5.5.4 (raised floor plenum) contains the requirement that only plenum cables shall be permitted to be installed in plenum raceways. Since cable routing assemblies, unlike raceways, are not required to be enclosed, the cables in a cable routing assembly may be exposed to the airflow and therefore must be listed for use in a plenum. The recommended additional last sentence therefore requires plenum grade cables in signaling, optical fiber and communications raceways and in cable routing assemblies installed in ceiling cavity plenums. See our companion Public Input for 4.3.11.5.5.4 which recommends identical requirements for raised floor plenums.



Organization: Communications Cable & Connectivity Assoc.


Committee Statement


Statement: UL 2024, which previously covered optical fiber and communications raceways, andUL 2024A which previously covered cable routing assemblies, have been merged.UL 2024A has been dropped and the new UL 2024 covers raceways (signaling,optical fiber and communications types) and cable routing assemblies. This PublicInput recommends updating the reference to UL 2024, as well as expanding thesection to reflect the expanded scope of UL 2024, which now includes signalingraceways, and cable routing assemblies. UL 2024 has identical fire testrequirements for raceways (signaling, optical fiber and communications types) andcable routing assemblies. The parallel Section 4.3.11.5.5.4 (raised floor plenum)



contains the requirement that only plenum cables shall be permitted to be installedin plenum raceways. Since cable routing assemblies, unlike raceways, are notrequired to be enclosed, the cables in a cable routing assembly may be exposed tothe airflow and therefore must be listed for use in a plenum. The recommendedadditional last sentence therefore requires plenum grade cables in signaling, opticalfiber and communications raceways and in cable routing assemblies installed inceiling cavity plenums. See our companion Public Input for 4.3.11.5.5.4 whichrecommends identical requirements for raised floor plenums.













4.3.11.2.6.5*

Loudspeakers, recessed lighting fixtures, and other electrical equipment withcombustible enclosures, including their assemblies and accessories, nonmetalliccable ties, wraps and supports, and other discrete products, shall be permitted inthe ceiling cavity plenum where listed as having a maximum peak optical density of0.5 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a peak heat release rateof 100 kW or less when tested in accordance with ANSI/UL 2043, Standard forSafety Fire Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release for Discrete Products andTheir Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces.


A variety of products are used for cable support and cable organization, including hooks, wraps and cable ties. Some of the wrap products are a hook and loop design (think Velcro) that have the same function as cable ties. Nonmetallic cable hangers of various designs are also used. This Public Input seeks to clarify what some of the “other discrete products” are. Examples of some of these products can be found on the web at: http://www.panduit.com/stellent/groups/mpm-wc/documents/selectionguide/cmscont_035126.pdf http://www.azcotechnologies.com/#!_wire-management http://www.comdangles.com/ http://panduitsolutions.com/networkers/staticfiles/assets/gb/SA-WAC06.pdf http://www.te.com/us/en/industries/energy/productsubcontents.aspx?name=9202







Committee Statement


Statement: A variety of products are used for cable support and cable organization, includinghooks, wraps and cable ties. Some of the wrap products are a hook and loop design(think Velcro) that have the same function as cable ties. Nonmetallic cable hangersof various designs are also used. This Public Input seeks to clarify what some of the“other discrete products” are. Examples of some of these products can be found onthe web at: http://www.panduit.com/stellent/groups/mpm-wc/documents/selectionguide/cmscont_035126.pdfhttp://www.azcotechnologies.com/#!_wire-managementhttp://www.comdangles.com/http://panduitsolutions.com/networkers/staticfiles/assets/gb/SA-WAC06.pdfhttp://www.te.com/us/en/industries/energy/productsubcontents.aspx?name=9202















4.3.11.2.6.6

Plastic piping and tubing used in plumbing systems shall be permitted to be usedwithin a ceiling cavity plenum if it exhibits a flame spread index of 25 or less and asmoke developed index of 50 or less when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84,Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, orANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, at full width of the tunnel and with no water or any other liquid in the pipeduring the test .


Specifying test conditions is not the responsibility of an installation standard, such as NFPA 90A. Such matters are the responsibility of the organization that develops and maintains the test standard, in this case the ASTM E-5 committee. That ASTM committee consists of representatives with the knowledge and experience to define the details involved with conducting such a test. The appropriate method of testing plastic pipe in the ASTM E-84 test has been vigorously debated by the E-5 committee without resolution to date. This is a current and active topic for this ASTM group. NFPA 90 should not contain language that modifies another organization's standard.


Submitter Full Name:DAVID ASH

Organization: LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS, I


Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee disagrees with proposed removal of this text which it findsnecessary.


I, DAVID ASH, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full






By checking this box I aff irm that I am DAVID ASH, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright







any Sub-Sections] ]

4.3.11.5.5 Materials within a raised floor plenum exposed to the airflow shall benoncombustible or shall (a) noncombustible or (b) exhibit a maximum flame spreadindex of 25 and a maximum smoke developed index of 50 when tested inaccordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials , or with ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Methodfor Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials , or (c) comply with4.3.11.5.5.1 through 4.3.11.5.5.11 , as applicable.


This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement for materials exposed to the airflow in ceiling cavity plenums and raised floor plenums is always considered to be, and should continue to be, that they be noncombustible (which is already shown) or be limited combustible (which is the option in 4.3.11.2.6.9 and in 4.3.11.5.5.8) or that they meet a flame spread index of 25 and a smoke developed index of 50 in the ASTM E84/UL 723 test (and that portion is implied but missing from the text). This same default applies in the International Mechanical Code.

This change does not affect (of course) the requirements for materials of construction of the plenum, electrical wires and cables, optical fiber cables, pneumatic tubing, sprinkler piping, raceways, discrete electrical products, supplementary materials, air ducts or air connectors. It is simply clarification consistent with the intent.

In the absence of this change the default would be for the materials to be noncombustible, which was never the intent. The technical committee clearly noticed that because its committee statement on comment 90A-33 was “The committee concludes that this is a material that would default to the general material requirements”. However, as pointed out by both Dwayne Sloan and myself, the default, if this language is not incorporated into the standard, is that materials that are not specifically mentioned must be noncombustible. At present NFPA 90A sends the user to a section that refers to the ASTM E 84/UL 723 requirements (section 4.3.3) but it applies only to “supplementary materials for air distribution systems”.This was proposed at the last cycle but it came in at the comment stage and was deemed new material and held. It was then proposed as a TIA but it did not get the ¾ majority needed for emergency nature. It received 21 affirmatives, 5 negatives, 1 abstention and 2 non returns on technical merit (20 affirmatives were needed, so that it passed on technical merit) and 19 affirmatives, 8 negatives, 0 abstentions and 2 non returns on emergency nature (21 affirmatives were needed, so that it failed on emergency nature).





Committee Statement

Resolution:



FR-8-NFPA 90A-2012

Statement: This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement formaterials exposed to the airflow in ceiling cavity plenums and raised floor plenumsis always considered to be, and should continue to be, that they be noncombustible(which is already shown) or be limited combustible (which is the option in4.3.11.2.6.9 and in 4.3.11.5.5.8) or that they meet a flame spread index of 25 and asmoke developed index of 50 in the ASTM E84/UL 723 test (and that portion isimplied but missing from the text). This same default applies in the InternationalMechanical Code. This change does not affect (of course) the requirements formaterials of construction of the plenum, electrical wires and cables, optical fibercables, pneumatic tubing, sprinkler piping, raceways, discrete electrical products,supplementary materials, air ducts or air connectors. It is simply clarificationconsistent with the intent. In the absence of this change the default would be for thematerials to be noncombustible, which was never the intent. The technicalcommittee clearly noticed that because its committee statement on comment 90A-33 was “The committee concludes that this is a material that would default to thegeneral material requirements”. However, as pointed out by both Dwayne Sloan andmyself, the default, if this language is not incorporated into the standard, is thatmaterials that are not specifically mentioned must be noncombustible. At presentNFPA 90A sends the user to a section that refers to the ASTM E 84/UL 723requirements (section 4.3.3) but it applies only to “supplementary materials for airdistribution systems”. This was proposed at the last cycle but it came in at thecomment stage and was deemed new material and held. It was then proposed as aTIA but it did not get the ¾ majority needed for emergency nature. It received 21affirmatives, 5 negatives, 1 abstention and 2 non returns on technical merit (20affirmatives were needed, so that it passed on technical merit) and 19 affirmatives, 8negatives, 0 abstentions and 2 non returns on emergency nature (21 affirmativeswere needed, so that it failed on emergency nature).















any Sub-Sections] ]

Materials within a raised floor plenum exposed to the airflow shall benoncombustible or shall (a) be noncombustible or (b) exhibit a maximum flamespread index of 25 and a maximum smoke developed index of 50 when tested inaccordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials , or with ANSI/UL 723, Standard Test Methodfor Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or (c) shall comply with4.3.11.5.5.1 through 4.3.11.5.5.11, as applicable.


The proposed language was the subject of proposed TIA Log No. 1022 which achieved the required 75% vote for Technical Merit ballot but did not pass the Emergency Nature ballot.

This is simply a correction of an omission in the text. The default requirement for materials exposed to the airflow in raised floor plenums was always considered to be, and should continue to be, that they be noncombustible (which is already in the Standard) or be limited-combustible or that they meet a flame spread index of 25 and a smoke developed index of 50 in teh ASTM E84/UL 723 test. The same default applies in the International Mechanical Code.


Submitter Full Name:William Koffel

Organization: Koffel Associates, Inc.

Affilliation: SPI Wire and Cable Section


Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-8 which exactly duplicates this.


I, William Koffel, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and






By checking this box I aff irm that I am William Koffel, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright







4.3.11.5.5.4

Optical Signaling, optical fiber , and communications, and signaling racewaysraceways, and cable routing assemblies shall be listed as having a maximum peakoptical density of 0.50 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and amaximum flame spread distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) or less when tested in accordancewith ANSI/UL 2024, Standard for Signalinc, Optical Fiber and CommunicationCable Raceway Communications Raceways and Cable Routing Assemblies .Cables installed within these raceways and cable routing assemblies shall belisted as plenum cable in accordance with the requirements in 4.3.11.5.5.1.


UL 2024, which previously covered optical fiber and communications raceways, and UL 2024A which previously covered cable routing assemblies, have been merged. UL 2024A has been dropped and the new UL 2024 covers raceways (signaling, optical fiber and communications types) and cable routing assemblies. This Public Input recommends updating the reference to UL 2024, as well as expanding the section to reflect the expanded scope of UL 2024, which now includes signaling raceways, and cable routing assemblies. UL 2024 has identical fire test requirements for raceways (signaling, optical fiber and communications types) and cable routing assemblies.Since cable routing assemblies, unlike raceways, are not required to be enclosed, the cables in a cable routing assembly may be exposed to the airflow and therefore must be listed for use in a plenum. The recommended additional last sentence therefore requires plenum grade cables in cable routing assemblies in addition to the existing requirement for plenum grade cables in plenum raceways. See our companion Public Input for 4.3.11.5.5.4 which recommends identical requirements for ceiling cavity plenums.





Committee Statement


Statement: The committee choose not to incorporate cable routing assemblies. This wouldallow excessive buildup of these materials.















4.3.11.5.5.6

Loudspeakers, recessed lighting fixtures, and other electrical equipment withcombustible enclosures, including their assemblies and accessories, nonmetalliccable ties, wraps and supportsand other discrete products, shall be permitted inthe raised floor plenum where listed as having a maximum peak optical density of0.5 or less, an average optical density of 0.15 or less, and a peak heat release rateof 100 kW or less when tested in accordance with ANSI/UL 2043, Standard forSafety Fire Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release for Discrete Products andTheir Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces.


A variety of products are used for cable support and cable organization, including hooks, wraps and cable ties. Some of the wrap products are a hook and loop design (think Velcro) that have the same function as cable ties. Nonmetallic cable hangers of various designs are also used. This Public Input seeks to clarify what some of the “other discrete products” are. Examples of some of these products can be found on the web at: http://www.panduit.com/stellent/groups/mpm-wc/documents/selectionguide/cmscont_035126.pdf http://www.azcotechnologies.com/#!_wire-management http://www.comdangles.com/ http://panduitsolutions.com/networkers/staticfiles/assets/gb/SA-WAC06.pdf http://www.te.com/us/en/industries/energy/productsubcontents.aspx?name=9202





Committee Statement


Statement: The committee added language to specify exactly the type of cable supportsallowed.








w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into thiscopyright assignment.








4.3.11.5.5.7

Plastic piping and tubing used in plumbing systems shall be permitted to be usedwithin a raised floor plenum if it exhibits a flame spread index of 25 or less and asmoke developed index of 50 or less when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84,Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, orANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, at full width of the tunnel and with no water or any other liquid in the pipeduring the test .


Specifying test conditions is not the responsibility of an installation standard, such as NFPA 90A. Such matters are the responsibility of the organization that develops and maintains the test standard, in this case the ASTM E-5 committee. That ASTM committee consists of representatives with the knowledge and experience to define the details involved with conducting such a test. The appropriate method of testing plastic pipe in the ASTM E-84 test has been vigorously debated by the E-5 committee without resolution to date. This is a current and active topic for this ASTM group. NFPA 90 should not contain language that modifies another organization's standard.


Submitter Full Name:DAVID ASH

Organization: LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS, I


Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee disagrees with proposed removal of this text which it findsnecessary.


I, DAVID ASH, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full






By checking this box I aff irm that I am DAVID ASH, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright






Public Input No. 6-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. 4.3.12.1.2 ]

4.3.12.1.2

Air movement between rooms and egress corridors in hospitals health care andambulatory care facilities occupancies shall be permitted where the transfer of airis required for clinical purposes by other standards.


Use of the term "nursing facilities' is an undefined term that is vague and subject to varying interpretations. The proposed revisionshould clearly define which occupancies shall be permitted using exiting code terminology for each such occupancy classification.


Submitter Full Name:Lawrence Gallagher

Organization: Gallagher and Associates

Submittal Date: Mon Apr 16 09:35:08 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-13


I, Law rence Gallagher, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

all and full rights in copyright in this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of

Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in

any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I

hereby w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this


By checking this box I aff irm that I am Law rence Gallagher, and I agree to be legally bound by the above




Public Input No. 23-NFPA 90A-2012 [ New Section after 4.3.13 ]

Add a new section to read:

4.4 Materials

4.4.1 * Noncombustible Material.

http://codesonline.nfpa.org/a/c.ref/2012_ID020101124684/sec



4.4.1.1 A material that complies with any of the following shall be considered anoncombustible material:

(1) * A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditionsanticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vaporswhen subjected to fire or heat

(2) A material that is reported as passing ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method forBehavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C

(3) A material that is reported as complying with the pass/fail criteria of ASTM E136 when tested in accordance with the test method and procedure in ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with aCone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750 Degrees C

4.4.1.2 Where the term limited - combustible is used in this Standard, it shall alsoinclude the term noncombustible.

4.4.2 * Limited-Combustible Material. A material shall be considered a limited-combustible material where all the conditions of 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 , and the conditions ofeither 4.4.2.3 or 4.4.2.4 , are met.

4.4.2.1 The material shall not comply with the requirements for noncombustible materialin accordance with 4.4.1 .

4.4.2.2 The material, in the form in which it is used, shall exhibit a potential heat valuenot exceeding 3500 Btu/lb (8141 kJ/kg) where tested in accordance with NFPA 259 ,Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials.

4.4.2.3 The material shall have the structural base of a noncombustible material with a

surfacing not exceeding a thickness of 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) where the surfacing exhibits a

flame spread index not greater than 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84,Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, orANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials.

4.4.2.4 The material shall be composed of materials that, in the form and thickness used,neither exhibit a flame spread index greater than 25 nor evidence of continued progressivecombustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for SurfaceBurning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test forSurface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, and shall be of such compositionthat all surfaces that would be exposed by cutting through the material on any plane wouldneither exhibit a flame spread index greater than 25 nor exhibit evidence of continuedprogressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or ANSI/UL 723.

4.4.2.5 Where the term limited-combustible is used in this standard, it shall also includethe term noncombustible.


This change puts NFPA 90A in line with what was done for NFPA 101 (and many other documents) in the 2012 cycle. NFPA requirements are that definitions cannot contain requirements and the definitions of noncombustible and limited combustible contain requirements. Therefore this public input proposes to put simply a place holder in chapter 3 (definitions) and place the requirements into Chapter 4, just as was done in NFPA 101 and 5000.



http://codesonline.nfpa.org/NFPA/a/c.html/nfpa_101/chapter_4_general/4_6_general_requirements/5#2012_ID020101124690





http://codesonline.nfpa.org/a/c.ref/NFC259/book



The proposed language is identical to the language in NFPA 101. If the technical committee wishes it can simply extract the language from NFPA 101. The corresponding sections are: 3.3.21 would be extracted from 3.3.169.2, 3.3.22 would be extracted from 3.3.169.4, 4.4.1 would be extracted from 4.6.13 and 4.4.2 would be extracted from 4.6.14.





Public Input No. 24-NFPA 90A-2012 [New Section after A.4.3.13]





Committee Statement














Public Input No. 29-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. 5.3.4.6 ]

35/41

5.3.4.6

Fire Combination fire/smoke dampers shall be installed at each direct or ductedopening into and out of enclosures required by 5.3.4.1, unless otherwise permittedby 5.3.4.6.1 or 5.3.4.6.2 3 .

5.3.4.6.

1 A fire damper

1 Combination fire/smoke dampers shall not be required in shafts where smokedampers are exempted by NFPA 101, Life Safety Code .

5.3.4.6.2

Fire dampers or combination fire/smoke dampers shall not be required where an airduct system serving only one story is used only for exhaust of air to the outsideand is contained within its own dedicated shaft.

5.3.4.6.2 3

A fire damper or a combination fire/smoke damper shall not be required where thefollowing conditions exist:

(1) Branch ducts connect to enclosed exhaust risers meeting the requirements of5.3.4.1 or 5.3.4.4.

(2) The airflow moves upward.

(3) Steel subducts at least 560 mm (22 in.) in length are carried up inside theriser from each inlet.

(4) The riser is appropriately sized to accommodate the flow restriction created bythe subduct.


The NFPA 90A technical committee overwhelmingly approved 90A-68 Log #CP15 during the last cycle, which is similar to the intent of this proposal. Out of 29 eligible voters, 23 voted affirmatively (3 negatives, 3 abstentions) to require combination fire/smoke dampers in shafts during the last cycle. In fact, the TC approved similar proposals during the past two cycle. However, the proposals was overturned with NITMAMs, primarily due to opposition from health care industry representatives. The NFPA LSC currently exempts dampers in shafts in health care facilities. This new proposal specifically exempts any new or existing occupancy, including health care, from this requirement when the LSC does not require smoke dampers in shafts. In view of the committees previous support of this proposal and their request for additional information, the Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA.org) retained Koffel Associates in 2008 to initiate an investigation to evaluate the performance of smoke dampers in building air handling systems, and to determine whether the statements made by various individuals during the Association meeting were accurate regarding fire and or fire/smoke dampers, and whether they are essential elements of a fire and smoke protection design, particularly in sprinklered buildings. The investigation also considered the claims that the cost of smoke dampers installed in fire resistance rated shafts was unjustified or cost prohibitive. The investigation included three initial phases: During Phase 1 LITERATURE SEARCH, Koffel Associates performed a literature review of code change proposals, codes and standards, and additional resources to gather information on what work has been done concerning the performance of smoke dampers in shaft penetrations and in corridor walls. Koffel Associates was directed to seek previous studies, reports or other unbiased, credible third-party research regarding the effectiveness of fire/smoke dampers in sprinklered and



nonsprinklered buildings. The scope of Phase II COMPUTER MODELING was to conduct computer fire modeling to evaluate the performance of smoke dampers in building air handling systems. The scope of Phase III COST ANALYSIS was to prepare a cost analysis by an independent mechanical engineering firm to determine the additional cost of installing a fire/smoke damper as compared to the cost of a fire damper in the simulated buildings that were used in the computer fire modeling. LITERATURE SEARCH RESULTS: Despite the concern about smoke spread throughout a building, the literature search revealed that little research has been documented concerning the benefit or performance of smoke dampers in corridor walls and in duct penetrations of shaft enclosures. The literature search resulted in finding very few documents of value in attempting to define the problem of smoke spread through HVAC ductwork with few references to acceptable performance criteria, other than research that was previously conducted by Hughes and Associates in 2001 for AMCA. Most of the other published work has focused on major sources of leakage such as door assemblies or in the case of the exterior wall work (not included herein), door and window assemblies. Cracks and penetrations in the walls is often identified but not evaluated quantitatively. The conclusion should not be made however, that smoke dampers do not provide an essential function or that there is no benefit; the performance and benefits simply have not been documented. The claims that smoke dampers do not contribute significantly to the fire/smoke safety of the building, or that they are cost prohibitive, are not substantiated by the literature search. Overall, it appears that insufficient, specific research has been performed and reported in this area to date to support either side of the case (for or against) a mandatory requirement for smoke dampers in shafts and corridors. However, the literature search did confirm that smoke spreads beyond the area of the fire’s origin in both sprinklered and non-sprinklered buildings, and that methods and materials/devices to manage such smoke should be considered in the building’sfire/smoke safety design. Automatic sprinkler systems alone do not adequately control the migration of smoke, as has been suggested by opponents of this proposal. COMPUTER FIRE MODELING RESULTS – The literature search identified two relatively recent modeling efforts looking at the vertical spread of smoke in buildings via shafts. Using these recent modeling projects as a basis, Koffel Associates was directed to conduct a computer fire modeling project to evaluate the performance of smoke dampers in building air handling systems to compile information and data on the effectiveness of smoke dampers. The scope of work involved creating a computer model of a building using CONTAM. The initial (Phase I) modeling effort by Koffel Associates was to replicate the results presented in a research paper previously provided to AMCA, titled “A Comparison of Driving Forces for Smoke Movement in Buildings”, by Frederick W. Mowrer, James A. Milke, and Jose L. Torero. Once the initial model was confirmed to be consistent with the work presented in the paper, conditions were then varied to evaluate the benefit of smoke dampers to demonstrate the difference in smoke movement throughout the building. A series of simulations was performed using buildings of varying heights including five stories, ten stories, twenty stories, and fifty stories, simulating both non-sprinklered and sprinklered fires. Data from the Plaza Hotel smoke control experiments performed by NIST in 1989 was used to enable a discussion of actual smoke concentration values and tenability times. For this analysis, a simple building model was constructed in CONTAM having the same attributes as the building evaluated in the “Mowrer Comparison”. A simple air handling system was provided with a single supply and return point at each floor. A very small leakage area was provided at the boundary wall between the interior and exterior zone on each story to provide balancing within the computer model, however this very small leakage area did not have any significant effect on the results. As in the hand calculations, a ventilation rate of 4 ACH and a recirculation rate of 90% were specified for the model. Smoke was modeled by introducing a contaminant with the same properties as air to simulate the behavior of well-mixed smoke. The exact smoke concentrations specified in the model were 5.66 x 10-5 lb/ft3 for

the nonsprinklered fire and 1.89 × 10-6 lb/ft3 for the sprinkler-controlled fire. These values were

calculated from the mass of the wood cribs used in the Plaza Hotel experiments and the smoke obscuration measurements obtained during the sprinklered test. For the 5-story building, after 12 hours the relative smoke concentration on non-fire floors was determined to be 7.8% of the smoke concentration on the fire floor with smoke dampers installed, as opposed to 64.3% without smoke dampers installed. This is equal to an 87.9% reduction in the smoke concentration for an unsprinklered fire. Again, the non-fire floor smoke concentrations are smaller in taller buildings simply because there is more building volume for the same amount of smoke. In all building heights, the preliminary model indicates that the addition of smoke dampers at the fire floor reduces the smoke concentration on nonfire floors by between 87% and 95% for unsprinklered fires, and by approximately 99.7% in those instances in which a sprinkler system effectively controls the fire. COST ANALYSIS RESULTS – AMCA retained the services of Leach Wallace, a mechanical engineering firm to estimate the costs of adding smoke dampers to the modeled buildings, which would have already been required to have fire dampers in fire rated assemblies. Leach Wallace Associates, Inc. is a consulting engineering firm headquartered in Baltimore Maryland area, with branch offices in York, Pennsylvania and Charlotte, North Carolina. The firm was established in 1990 with the purpose of providing comprehensive mechanical, electrical, and energy systems engineering design services for healthcare, institutional, commercial, industrial and governmental clients. This study consists of designing the HVAC system for a theoretical office building for the purpose of analyzing the costs for installation and maintenance of the code required fire/smoke dampers located in supply and return ductwork at 2-hour shaft separations. The office building is designed as a 100 square meter building (10 meters × 10 meters) of varying heights. DESIGN PARAMETERS: From the Koffel Associates report, “Smoke Damper Evaluation for Air Movement & Control Association International, Inc.”, Dated January 14, 2010, the building analyzed is a typical office building with floor sizes of 100 square meters (10m × 10m). Four different building heights were analyzed; five, ten, twenty and fifty stories. The slab to slab height is stated as being 3m. The HVAC design for this study includes the sizing of the central air handling equipment, main ductwork risers, floor branch ductwork, and damper. For each scheme, a single air handling unit with a single supply and return shaft has been designed with a single branch per floor. Based on 2009 International Mechanical Code, combination fire/smoke dampers are indicated at each floor take-off. The HVAC system design is based on a variable volume overhead air distribution system. The supply system is a medium pressure variable volume system with pressure independent terminal units for zone temperature control. The return system is low pressure with fan tracking to maintain building pressurization. The duct sizing method is the equal-friction method as described in 2009 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. A friction rate of 0.08”/100ft or 1600 fpm velocity are the maximum parameters for low pressure return air duct sizing. A friction rate of 0.3”/100 ft or 2600 fpm velocity are the maximum parameters for medium pressure supply air duct sizing. Refer to the attached Sketches, SK-1 and SK-2, for the schematic-level system designs, including duct sizes and air handling unit sizes. HVAC LOAD CALCULATIONS: The air handling system sizing is based on building peak cooling load calculations. The cooling loads have been calculated using Carrier’s Hourly Analysis Program version 4.31. The input parameters for the design are further described below. The building interior is assumed to be 85% usable office space and 15% support spaces (stairwells, shafts, elevators). Loads are based on 8 foot by 8 foot cubicles with one occupant and one computer per cubicle within the 85% usable space, yielding 14 cubicles per floor. Lighting load density is 1 W/sqft as per office use criteria in 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. The building envelope was assumed to be commonly used construction assemblies as found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 as follows: ? 40% of the exterior surface as glazing which is the maximum allowable.



? Windows are “curtain wall type” with a maximum U number of 0.6 BTU/sqft*F. ? Walls are “steel framed” with a maximum U value of 0.084 BTU/sqft*F. ? Roof is “insulation entirely above deck” with a maximum U value of 0.048 BTU/sqft*F. The setpoints of the HVAC system are based on the recommendations for office space in the 2007 ASHRAE Handbook – HVAC Applications – Section 3.2: ? 74 degrees F for summer cooling. ? 70 degrees F for winter heating Outdoor temperatures are for Baltimore Maryland from 2009 ASHRAE Handbook – Fundamentals: ? 93.9 degrees F dry bulb in cooling mode. (0.4% design day) ? 74.9 degrees F mean coincident wet bulb in cooling mode. (0.4% design day) ? 12.9 degrees F dry bulb in heating mode. (99.6% design day) COST ANALYSIS: From a cost standpoint, it is assumed that if combination fire/smoke dampers are removed from the system, that fusible link fire dampers would still be required to maintain the 2-hour shaft rating. Therefore the cost associated with the smoke dampers is analyzed as a “delta” between the combination fire/ smoke dampers and fusible link fire dampers. In accordance with the system sizing, the duct tap and damper sizes for the single supply and return tap per floor are 24” × 8” and 24” × 12” respectively. Refer to attached sketches, SK-1 and SK-2. Installation costs have been determined through 2010 RS Means. The detailed breakdown for each damper type and size and for each source of cost data has been included in the cost estimate sheets (available upon request). Fire/smoke dampers are assumed to use the “area detection” system, whereby fire/smoke dampers are activated by the floor wide smoke detection system indexed to the fire alarm system as per International Mechanical Code, 2009. Because the floor wide smoke detection system and fire alarm system are independently required, the cost of these systems are not counted towards the cost of the fire/smoke dampers. For comparison purposes, the costs for the 24” × 12” dampers (including installation) based on contractor input are as follows: 24” × 12” Combination Fire/smoke Damper: $721 24” × 12” Fusible Link Fire Damper: $64 The total added installation cost for each building model (including all dampers) for utilizing combination fire/smoke dampers over fusible link fire dampers is as follows: 5 Story Building: $6,440 10 Story Building: $12,880 20 Story Building: $25,760 50 Story Building: $64,400 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION: Although it is agreed by both Koffel Associates and Air Movement and Control Association that more work is required before irrefutable conclusions may be made the preliminary findings supports what many mechanical engineers and fire protection engineers have concluded for decades: that smoke does migrate from the area of origin in both sprinklered and non sprinklered buildings, that smoke dampers can reduce the movement of such smoke within the HVAC system, and that it is not cost prohibitive to require them. The statements by opponents to this proposal that automatic sprinkler systems completely manage/control smoke, and that there is no cost/benefit to incorporating smoke dampers is unsubstantiated. The statement made that there is no substantiation for requiring dampers in HVAC systems is also unfounded. Based on an examination of NFPA data in the 1930s, the National Board of Fire Underwriters in 1939 recommended that dampers be installed in the HVAC system to interrupt the passage of smoke, flame and heat during a fire. Since that time, dampers have been installed in HVAC systems. The usefulness of automatic closing fire and/or smoke dampers and automatic fan shutdown of the HVAC system in preventing the migration of smoke, flame and heat to areas of a building remote from the area of origin has been substantiated by numerous experts in the field of the fire sciences. The impressive fire death record in many buildings types and occupancy groups in recent years can be attributed, in part, to the successful activation of a



property designed and maintained automatic sprinklers AND the management of smoke and toxic

gases to prevent migration to areas remote from the fire. A copy of the AMCA research to date is available upon request to Tim Orris,at www. AMCA.org.





Committee Statement

Resolution: The submitter has not provided any data of actual fire losses/injuries due to indicatethat the current language in this section is inadequate and therefore requiriing theadditional protection proposed.












12/13/12


Public Input No. 30-NFPA 90A-2012 [ New Section after 5.4.5.4.2 ]

Add new text to read as follows: 5.4.5.4.3 Fire dampers, smoke damper, and combination fire/smoke dampers shall notbe required in ducts used for kitchen or clothes dryer exhaust systems.


Dampers installed in these locations is not recommended by designers or manufacturers due to the grease laden vapors or lint that may be conveyed through the ducts.





Committee Statement


Statement: The committee agrees that this provides additional clarification.















6.3.3

Smoke dampers installed to isolate the air-handling system in accordance with4.3.9 10 .2 shall be arranged to close automatically when the system is not inoperation.


It appears that Section 6.3.3 references the incorrect paragraph.


Submitter Full Name:STEVE GILLAN

Organization: GILLAN HARTMANN INC


Committee Statement


Statement: It appears that Section 6.3.3 references the incorrect paragraph.


I, STEVE GILLAN, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and






By checking this box I aff irm that I am STEVE GILLAN, and I agree to be legally bound by the above






Public Input No. 38-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. A.4.3.11.2.6.5 ]

A.4.3.11.2.6.5

Cable Nonmetallic cable ties, listed to ANSI/UL 62275, Cable ManagementSystems- Cable Ties for Electrical Installations and nonmetallic wraps andsupports listed to ANSI/UL 1565, Positioning Devices, and marked for use inplenums are considered suitable for use wherever cable ties tested in accordancewith ANSI/UL 2043, Standard for Safety Fire Test for Heat and Visible SmokeRelease for Discrete Products and Their Accessories Installed in Air-HandlingSpaces, are required.


Cable ties have been split out from ANSI/UL 1565, Positioning Devices into a new standard, ANSI/UL 62275, Cable Management Systems- Cable Ties for Electrical Installations. The scope of UL 1565 is: Positioning Devices UL 1565 1 Scope 1.1 This standard applies to those metallic and nonmetallic devices used for positioning - which may include bundling and securing - or to a limited extent supporting cable, wire, conduit, or tubing of a wiring system in electrical installations, to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, or injury to persons. This standard applies to, but is not limited to, cable ties, cable tie mounting blocks, cable clamps, cable and conduit clips, and non-raceway ducts. 1.2 These requirements do not apply to coated electrical sleeving, extruded insulating tubing, metallic or nonmetallic raceways or woven flexible nonmetallic tubing (fiber loom), employed as mechanical protection for insulated wires or equipment covered by other standards or requirements. 1.3 These requirements do not apply to any mechanical protection or electrical insulation that is provided by these devices. 1.4 In Canada, the requirements in this standard generally address class of workmanship in accordance with the Canadian Electrical Code Part 1, and where applicable, minor combustible components in the National Building Code of Canada. The scope of UL 62275 is: Cable Management Systems - Cable Ties for Electrical Installations UL 62275 1 Scope This International Standard specifies requirements for metallic, non-metallic and composite cable ties and their associated fixing devices used for the management and support of wiring systems in electrical installations. Cable ties and associated fixing devices may also be suitable for other applications and where so used, regard should be taken of any additional requirements. This standard does not contain requirements that evaluate any electrical insulation properties of the cable tie or mechanical protection of the cables provided by the cable tie. This is a companion Public Input to our proposal for 4.3.11.2.6.5 which recommends recognition of other cable support and organization devices beyond just cable ties.







Committee Statement


Statement: The committee changed the words "wraps and" to "cable".












Public Input No. 24-NFPA 90A-2012 [ New Section after A.4.3.13 ]

Add new sections to read:

A.4.4.1 The provisions of 4.4.1 do not require inherently noncombustible materials to betested in order to be classified as noncombustible materials.

A.4.4.2 Materials subject to increase in combustibility or flame spread index beyond thelimits herein established through the effects of age, moisture, or other atmosphericcondition are considered combustible. (See NFPA 259 , Standard Test Method for PotentialHeat of Building Materials, and NFPA 220 , Standard on Types of Building Construction.)












Committee Statement














Public Input No. 31-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. A.7.2 ]

A.7.2

See NFPA 105, Standard for Smoke Door Assemblies and Other OpeningProtectives, for testing requirements for smoke dampers and combination fire andsmoke dampers. See NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other OpeningProtectives, for testing requirements for fire dampers. AMCA International’s “Guidefor Commissioning and Periodic Performance Testing of Fire, Smoke and OtherLife Safety Related Dampers” (2011) provides recommendations from dampermanufacturers on how to test dampers for acceptance testing and for follow upperiodic testing.


There is widespread inconsistency on how to test life safety dampers. This document is intended to provide a resource document to help eliminate unnecessary steps to proper

inspection and testing procedure, while ensuring that damper testing is useful and yields



inspection and testing procedure, while ensuring that damper testing is useful and yields

inspection and maintenance information that supports their proper function in the event of an emergency. The entire document is not intended to be published in the 90A annex, but has been re-printed here for information purpose, and review by the TC and other interested parties. Guide for Commissioning and Periodic Performance Testing of Fire, Smoke and Other Life Safety Related Dampers (2011) Copyrighted and published by AMCA International (www.amca.org) Purpose Fire Dampers, Smoke Dampers, Combination Fire Smoke Dampers, Ceiling Radiation Dampers, and other types of dampers that perform as part of a building’s Fire Protection or Life-Safety System must function properly during a fire or life-safety emergency. Proper installation and periodic performance testing are required to ensure these dampers function as intended in a fire emergency. The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations for the proper commissioning of Fire and Life Safety Related Dampers and to describe the appropriate intervals and methods for performing periodic performance testing of these dampers. Background Life Safety Dampers are designed to perform a number of functions in a building’s HVAC, Fire and/or Smoke Control System and are an integral part of the overall life-safety system within the building. Generally, Fire Dampers are designed to close and prevent the spread of fire through an opening in a fire resistive barrier. Ceiling Radiation Dampers are designed to close and reduce the transfer of heat through an opening in the ceiling membrane of floor-ceiling or roof-ceiling assembly. Refer to the specified ceiling design for details regarding penetrations. Smoke Dampers operate to prevent the spread of smoke by closing to stop airflow or by opening to exhaust smoke. They can also be opened or closed to create pressure differences (as in an engineered smoke control system) to reduce the spread of smoke. Combination Fire Smoke Dampers perform the dual role of both Fire Dampers and Smoke Dampers. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has developed and maintains standards for the testing, qualification, and appropriate labeling of Fire Dampers (UL 555), Smoke Dampers (UL 555S), Combination Fire Smoke Dampers (UL 555 and UL 555S) and Ceiling Radiation Dampers (UL 555C & UL 263). Manufacturers of these dampers, who have complied with these UL requirements, provide classified and labeled dampers for installation where required in HVAC and Engineered Smoke Control Systems. Building Codes and several NFPA and ASHRAE Standards identify where Fire, Smoke and Ceiling Radiation Damper s are required to be installed in a building’s HVAC and/or Smoke Control System. Architects and Design Engineers incorporate Code required dampers in their building designs but also may incorporate additional requirements depending on a building’s specific purpose and intended function. Commissioning or Acceptance Testing The term Commissioning is used to define an inspection process to determine if all components of a building are operating as intended by the building’s design. Ensuring that a building’s mechanical system, its HVAC System, and any Smoke Control or other Life-Safety related systems operate properly (including all Fire and Life-Safety Related Dampers), and documenting their proper operation is the result of the Commissioning process. This process is also known as Acceptance Testing. Below are the AMCA recommended checklists for the commissioning of Fire and Life-Safety Related Dampers. For specific installation requirements of the brand and model damper being commissioned, the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions shall be referenced. Fire Dampers and Combination Fire Smoke Dampers 1. Positioning of the Damper in the Opening – Unless specifically allowed by the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions, the centerline of the fire damper’s frame shall be located in the plane of the fire rated assembly. 2. Damper Sleeve – Unless the damper frame is wide enough to provide for direct attachment of retaining angles, all fire dampers shall be mounted in a sleeve fabricated per the damper



manufacturer’s installation instructions. The sleeve shall not extend more than 6 inches beyond the wall or floor opening unless there is an actuator or factory mounted access door on the damper. When an actuator or factory mounted access door is installed, the sleeve shall notextend more than 16 inches beyond the wall or floor opening. The sleeve is still limited to extending 6 inches beyond the wall or floor opening on the side opposite the actuator or factory mounted access door. 3. Clearance between Damper and Wall/Floor Opening – Most dampers are tested with defined clearances between the damper’s sleeve and the wall or floor opening. Unless otherwise indicated in the installation instructions, the annular space between the sleeve of the damper and the wall/floor opening should not be filled with firestop materials such as fill, void or cavity materials. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the specific clearance requirements. 4. Securing Damper and Sleeve to the Wall/Floor Openings – Most approved damper installation methods require the use of retaining angles to secure the damper in the wall or floor opening. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the required material gauge of the retaining angles, the required overlap between the retaining angles and the wall or floor, and the spacing and type of fasteners to be used. 5. Duct to Sleeve Connections – Dampers are tested and approved to use specific methods for connecting the damper sleeve to adjoining ductwork. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the allowable duct to sleeve connections. 6. Damper Access – Access to the dampers shall be provided. Access shall be large enough to allow inspection and maintenance of the damper and its operating parts. The access points shall be permanently identified on the exterior by a label having letters not less than ½ inch in height reading: FIRE/SMOKE DAMPER or FIRE DAMPER. 7. Damper Flow and Pressure Ratings – For dynamic fire dampers and combination fire smoke dampers, it shall be verified that the system airflow and pressure are within the damper’s ratings 8. Operation of the Damper – After the damper is installed it shall be cycled to ensure proper operation. The operation test performed as part of the commissioning process shall follow the same procedure described in the Periodic Performance Testing section below. Smoke Dampers 1. Positioning of the Damper Relative to the Opening – The centerline of the damper shall be mounted within 24 inches of the opening it is protecting. In addition, no ductwork shall branch-off between the damper and the wall or floor opening it is protecting. 2. Sealing the Damper Frame to the Ductwork – Many damper installations require that the damper frame be sealed to the ductwork it is being installed in. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions to determine if this requirement applies and to determine the allowable sealants. 3. Damper Access – Access to the dampers shall be provided. Access shall be large enough to allow inspection and maintenance of the damper and its operating parts. The access points shall be permanently identified on the exterior by a label having letters not less than ½ inch in height reading: SMOKE DAMPER. 4. Damper Flow and Pressure Ratings – It shall be verified that the system airflow and pressure are within the dampers ratings. 5. Operation of the Damper – After the damper is installed it shall be cycled to ensure proper operation. The operation test performed as part of the commissioning process shall follow the same procedure described in the periodic performance testing section below. Ceiling Radiation Dampers 1. Hourly Rating – Ceiling dampers carry a maximum hourly rating for the assembly in which they are installed. Check that the maximum hourly rating of the damper installed is approved for the same hourly rating as the ceiling assembly. 2. Positioning of the Damper in or Over the Penetration – The damper can be installed on top of a steel diffuser, sitting directly on the rated ceiling grid, in a steel duct drop, or supported such that the frame rest at the penetration. Refer to the manufacturer’s installation instructions for the maximum allowed distance that the closed blades are allowed from the bottom of the rated



ceiling. In the case of drywall installation, consult instructions for maximum allowed clearance between penetration and damper frame. 3. Thermal Blanket – When a damper is not located directly in the penetration and the damper frame is more than 1 inch smaller than the penetration, then a thermal blanket is normally required to reduce heat transfer across the grille back pan. Refer to the manufacturers installation instructions for the recommended material and size of the thermal blanket. 4. Clearance between Damper, Grille, Duct, and Wall/Floor Opening – Most dampers are tested with defined clearances as specified in their instructions. If not specified, a rule of thumb is to keep tolerances minimal (less than 1/8 inch) between connecting components. If possible, have the largest component extend over the smaller one below it. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for the specific clearance requirements. 5. Securing Damper to the Sleeve, Grille, Ductwork – Most of the time, dampers are to be installed so that they are supported by the structural members above them or the ceiling grid. Ceiling dampers are not normally supported by the drywall, gypsum, or ceiling tiles alone. They are normally supported via steel wires, hangers, or duct drops with direct fasteners such as screws, rivets, and bolts. Reference the damper manufacturer’s installation instructions for therequired material and fasteners. 6. Grille to Damper to Duct Connections – Unless otherwise stated in the manufacturer’s installation instructions, the damper will either lie on the ceiling grid or cover the neck of the diffuser. If connected to duct, the damper should be installed inside the duct connection. 7. Operation of the Damper – After the damper is installed, the fuse link shall be removed and the damper blades allowed to close upon its own mechanics. Cycling the damper ensures proper operation. The operation test performed as part of the commissioning process shall follow the same procedure described in periodic performance testing section below. Periodic Performance Testing Fire Life-Safety related dampers that are properly applied and installed and that have proven the ability to function as intended through a building commissioning process should require no specific on-going maintenance beyond the periodic testing described below to confirm operability. Although the required frequency of this periodic operation testing varies by local jurisdiction, most local requirements reference one of two national standards, either NFPA 80 or NFPA 105. NFPA 80 covers the requirements for fire dampers and NFPA 105 covers the requirements for smoke dampers. Both documents contain the following frequency requirements for periodic operation testing:Each damper shall be tested and inspected one year after installation. The test and inspection frequency shall then be every 4 years, except in hospitals, where the frequency shall be every 6 years. The method used to perform the periodic operation testing depends on the type of damper. More specifically, it depends on how the damper operates. From an operability standpoint, fire life-safety related dampers fall into one of the two following categories: 1. Dampers Requiring a Fusible Link to Operate – Most Fire Dampers and Ceiling Radiation Dampers, and some Combination Fire Smoke Dampers are held in an open position by a fusible link. The fusible link is designed to melt at a specified temperature allowing gravity or a spring to close the damper. After the fusible link has melted these dampers remain closed until reopened manually and a new fusible link is installed. 2. Dampers That Do Not Require a Fusible Link to Operate – Smoke Dampers, some Fire Dampers and most Combination Fire Smoke Dampers do not use fusible links to operate. These dampers use an electric or pneumatic actuator to operate the damper. Fire Dampers and Combination Fire Smoke Dampers that do not use fusible links use a bi-metallic disc type thermostat to interrupt electrical power or air pressure to the actuator at a specified temperature.Once the electrical power or air pressure is interrupted the spring return feature of the actuator closes the damper.The recommended procedure for performing the periodic operation testing on fusible link operated dampers is described below. As always, the damper manufacturer’s installation and operation instructions should be followed: 1. For safety considerations, ensure that the fan is off.



2. With the damper in the full-open position, remove the fusible link. Care should be taken to ensure that there are no obstructions, including hands, in the path of the damper blades before the fusible link is removed. 3. Once the fusible link is removed, ensure that the damper closes completely without assistance. If the damper is designed with a latch to hold the damper in the full-closed position confirm that the damper latches properly. 4. Return the damper to the full-open position and replace the fusible link. If the link appears damaged, replace with a functionally equivalent link. Periodic Performance Testing for Dampers That Do Not Use a Fusible Link to Operate The recommended procedure for performing periodic operation testing on dampers that do not require a fusible link to operate is described below. Two procedures are described. The first describes the procedure for dampers designed with position indication switches to verify that the damper has reached the full-open and full-closed position These switches can be wired to local or remote control panels or building automation systems (BAS) to indicate if the damper is in the full-open position, the full-closed position, or neither. The second procedure describes the procedure for testing dampers without position indication switches. As always, the damper manufacturer’s installation and operation instructions should be followed. Dampers with Position Indication Wired to Indication Lights, Control Panels or BAS 1. Use the signal from the damper’s position indication device to confirm that the damper is in the full-open position. 2. Remove electrical power or air pressure from the actuator to allow the actuator’s spring return feature to close the damper. 3. Use the signal from the damper’s position indication device to confirm that the damper reaches its full-closed position. 4. Reapply electrical power or air pressure to reopen the damper. 5. Use the signal from the damper’s position indication device to confirm that the damper reaches its full-open position. Dampers without Position Indication 1. Visually confirm that the damper is in the full-open position. 2. Ensure that all obstructions, including hands, are out of the path of the damper blades and then remove electrical power or air pressure from the actuator to allow the actuator’s spring return feature to close the damper. 3. Visually confirm that the damper closes completely 4. Reapply electrical power or air pressure to reopen the damper. 5. Visually confirm that the damper is in the full-open position. In addition to these requirements, NFPA 72 and NFPA 92 describe the periodic testing requirements for smoke control systems. Dampers that are part of smoke control systems shall be cycled as part of this testing. List of Publications Referenced in this Document UL 555 Standard for Fire Dampers UL 555S Standard for Smoke Dampers UL 555C Standard for Ceiling Dampers UL 263 Standard for Fire Tests of Building and Construction Materials NFPA 80 Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives NFPA 105 Standard for the installation of Smoke Door Assemblies and Other Opening Protectives NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code NFPA 92 Standard for Smoke Control Systems







Committee Statement


Statement: The committee agred with the submitter, but changed the word "recommendations"to "guidlines.














Public Input No. 18-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. C.1.2.2 ]

C.1.2.2 ASTM International Publications.





ASTM E 2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnacewith a Cone-Shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750°C, 2009 2009a .


Standards date updates




Submittal Date: Sun Jun 10 20:03:47 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Standards date updates. The committee made revisions at the request of thesubmitter to further update the editions.














Public Input No. 8-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Section No. C.1.2.5 ]

C.1.2.5 UL Publications.


ANSI/UL 555, Standard for Safety Fire Dampers, 2006, Revised 2010 2011 .

ANSI/UL 555S, Standard for Safety Smoke Dampers, 1999, Revised 2010 2011 .

ANSI/UL 1565, Positioning Devices , 2002, Revised 2008.

ANSI/UL 2043, Standard for Fire Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release forDiscrete Products and Their Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces ,2008.

UL Subject 2424, Outline of Investigation for Cable Marked LimitedCombustible , 2006.

Building Materials Directory , 2010 2012 .

Fire Resistance Directory , 2010 2012 .

Heating, Cooling, Ventilating and Cooking Equipment Directory , 2009 2012 .


Update referenced standard to most recent edition as indicated.


Submitter Full Name:John Bender

Organization: Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Submittal Date: Wed Apr 18 13:21:50 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Update referenced standard to most recent edition as indicated. The committeechanged the edition year for ANSI/UL 555 at the request of the submitter to correctan error.


I, John Bender, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and






By checking this box I aff irm that I am John Bender, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright




Public Input No. 32-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Global Input ... · PDF filePublic Input No. 32-NFPA...

Documents

Transcript of Public Input No. 32-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Global Input ... · PDF filePublic Input No. 32-NFPA...