Content page

From [Institution name]

Chart for Thickness for Target Performance
Performance Level in CAN/ULC-9705-13 Test ^{Footnote (1)}	Equivalence	Primer Thickness ^{Footnote (2)} (wet film thickness [WFT])	DC 315 Thickness (WFT)
10 min. to flashover	Interior finishes described in Subsections 9.29.4. through 9.29.9.	3 mil	20 mil
20 min. to flashover	12.7-mm gypsum board	3 mil	24 mil

Results of Testing the Material Properties of the Product
Property	Unit	Test Method ^{Footnote (1)}	Requirement	Result
Flashpoint (Pensky-Martens closed cup)	°C	As per Section 3.1 of CGSB 1-GP-71 (uses apparatus of ASTM D 93)	Min. 35	> 100°C
Consistency	Kerbs	As per Section 4.5 of CGSB 1-GP-71 (uses apparatus of ASTM D 562)	Min. 85	850 – 1 700
Drying time	–	As per Section 5.1 of CGSB 1-GP-71 or ASTM D 7488	Report value	To recoat: Up to 6 h Dry through: 24 h
Solid content	%	As per Section 2.2 of CGSB 1-GP-71 or ASTM D 2697	Min. 40%	67%
Lead content	ppm	Health Canada Method C02	< 100	Pass ^{Footnote (1)}
Phthalates content	ppm	Health Canada Method C34	< 1%	Pass ^{Footnote (1)}
Volatile organic compound (VOC)	g/l	ASTM D 2369	< 50	47

Notes:

Footnote 1

The lead content falls under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Testing by ITS has confirmed that the DC 315 is not classified for WHMIS or for Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations (CCCR), as DC 315 contains no hazardous material in excess of 1%. Chemically, lead is not a component in the DC 315 formulation.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

The phthalates, which are contained in polyvinyl chloride (PVC), fall under the Consumer Product Safety Act intended for children's toys and furniture. Per Table Note 1, the DC 315 is not classified under WHMIS or CCCR because the formulation has no hazardous material in excess of 1%. Therefore, phthalates, if present are < 1%

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Results of Testing the Material and Environmental Conditioning/Aging of the Product
Property	Test Method	Requirement	Result
Flexibility	ASTM D 522	No cracking or peeling on a 12.5-mm mandrel	Pass 9.5 mm (3/8 in.)
Self-lifting	As per Section 132.1 of CGSB 1-GP-71	No blistering, wrinkling, loosening, softening or other defects due to the application of a second similar coat	N/A DC 315 is applied in one coat
Adhesion to substrate at specified thickness (with primer)	ASTM D 3359, Method A	Min. adhesion rating: 4A	5A
Adhesion to substrate – resistance to high humidity	ASTM D 3359, Method A after conditioning	Min. adhesion rating: 4A	5B
Adhesion – pulloff strength	ASTM D 4541	Report value	50 psi
Impact resistance, 7-days dry	ASTM D 2794	Direct: 30 in./lb Indirect: 10 in./lb	^{Footnote (1)}
Moisture resistance	ASTM D 4585 Moisture Protocol	No blistering, wrinkling or loss of adhesion (Adhesion ASTM D 3359)	Pass
Fungal/mildew resistance	ASTM C 1338	No more fungal growth than control specimen	Pass ^{Footnote (2)}
Water vapour permeance (WVP)	ASTM E 96/E 96M-13 (Desiccant Method)	Report value	977 ng/(Pa·s×m²)

Results of Thermal Barrier Performance Fire Testing − Acceptable and Alternative Solutions
Property	Test Method	Result Time to Flashover (minutes:seconds)
NBC Acceptable Solutions – Benchmark Performance
11.7-mm oriented strand board (OSB)	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	2:15
13-mm oak-veneered plywood/13-mm spruce -plywood/11.9 DF plywood	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	1:18 to 3:03
13-mm particleboard	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	2:20 to 2:36
Insulating wood fibreboard	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	0:59
9.5-mm gypsum board	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	N/A ^{Footnote (1)}
Cementitious ULC-listed Classification B, CAN/ULC-S124 compliant thermal barrier	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	14:10
Common Practice (as-built environment)
12.5-mm regular gypsum (MD spray urethane cavity insulation and studs also protected)	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	20:00 ^{Footnote (2)}
Alternative Solutions
IFTI – DC 315: Two Alternative Thermal Barrier Applications
3 mil (WFT) primer and 20 mil (WFT) DC 315 – over MD SPUF (no exposed wood studs)(3)	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test Target 10 minutes ^{Footnote (4)} for equivalency to minimum of NBC-acceptable solutions	11:00
3 mil (WFT) primer and 24 mil (WFT) DC 315 – over MD SPUF (no exposed wood studs) ^{Footnote (3)}	Target 20 minutes ^{Footnote (5)} for equivalency to 12.7-mm regular gypsum	20:00 ^{Footnote (2)}
IFTI – DC 315: Thermal Barrier Fire Testing with Mechanical Damage to Coating ^{Footnote (6)}
35 mil WFT with damage/exposed MD SPUF over burner area(6)	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	20:00 ^{Footnote (2)}
IFTI – DC 315: Thermal Barrier Performance over Various CAN/ULC-S705.1-compliant MD SPUF
Benchmark SPUF (CCMC-evaluated): 3 mil (WFT) primer and 20 mil (WFT) DC 315	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	10:00
3 mil (WFT) primer and 24 mil (WFT) DC 315	ISO/CAN/ULC-9705 Full-scale room test	20:00
9 medium density CAN/ULC-S705.1-compliant foams tested	Full-scale room tests ^{Footnote (7)}	Equivalent performance has been demonstrated for CAN/ULC-S705.1-compliant MD spray urethane insulation.

Notes:

Footnote 1

Test data for 9.5-mm gypsum board is not available as it does not represent the minimum performance or common practice solution.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

The full-room test procedure, ULC/ISO 9705 terminates the test at the 20-minute (NFPA 286 terminates at the 15-minute mark) if flashover is not reached as this is the target performance for the 12.7 mm gypsum board as a thermal barrier. In cases where the fire test was not terminated, the time-to-flashover could vary from 22-28 minutes. Both 12.7 mm gypsum board and the DC315 did not reach flashover conditions during the 20 minute exposure to fire.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

The majority of room tests were conducted primarily to compare thermal barrier performance over the foam plastic, without exposed studs, so that direct comparison could be achieved. For AHJs that plan to specify that exposed studs or exposed ceiling joists also be protected by the intumescent coating, as is the case with panel products, then the equivalent thickness (primer and DC 315) shall be sprayed over the exposed stud and/or joist member.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Where the minimum performance of the NBC interior finishes will be deemed acceptable by the AHJ, it is proposed that protection which prevents the foamed plastic from reaching flashover in the first 10 minutes following CAN/ULC-9705 be accepted. This is viewed as a conservative solution given many of the acceptable thermal barriers would lead to flashover after only 1 to 3 minutes.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

As this performance is equivalent to 12.7 mm, it is proposed that this method of protection which prevents the foamed plastic from reaching flashover during the entire 20-minute CAN/ULC-9705 test method be considered as equivalent to a Class B panel-type thermal barrier when tested in accordance with CAN/ULC-S124.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Based on existing test data where no primer was used, some MD SPUF became exposed to the flame. Due to the close contact of the intumescent coating to the SPUF insulation, the expansion of the coating controlled the fire spread. In comparison to a panel-type thermal barrier which becomes damaged, in a fire the entire cavity of the foam plastic would contribute to the fire spread.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

The Report Holder has conducted multiple full-scale room tests on the MD SPUF. The analysis of the thermal barrier performance of the nine (9) MD SPUF provides confidence that the specified primer and DC 315 coating thicknesses could be assigned the time-to-flashover for all CCMC-evaluated CAN/ULC-S705.1-compliant MD SPUF.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Results of Testing the Insulation for Resistance to Mechanical Damage
Property	Test Method	Result
	Concentrated Load
	ASTM E 661 ^{Footnote (1)}
Benchmark (9.5-mm gypsum board)	Full-scale floor panel test procedure Ultimate load applied with a 75-mm (3-in.) disc.	154 lb.
Benchmark (12.7-mm gypsum board)		183 lb.
DC 315 over MD SPUF (18 mil WFT)		376 lb.
DC 315 over MD SPUF (24 mil WFT)		423 lb.
		DC 315 with SPUF > Benchmark
	Concentrated Load following Impact Load ^{Footnote (2)}
	ASTM E 661
Benchmark (9.5-mm gypsum board)	150 mm impact, 77 lb. proof load	Fracture
Benchmark (12.5-mm gypsum board)	300 mm impact, 92 lb. proof load	Fracture
DC 315 over MD SPUF (18 mil WFT)	450 mm impact, 182 lb. ^{Footnote (3)}	Small chips (12.5 mm diameter)
DC 315 over MD SPUF (24 mil WFT)	450 mm impact, 182 lb. ^{Footnote (3)}	Small chips (5 mm diameter)
		DC 315 with SPUF ^{Footnote (5)} > Benchmark
Falling Ball Impact ^{Footnote (4)}
	ASTM D 5420
Benchmark (9.5-mm gypsum board)	30 in.	Cracking at back
	42 in.	Cracking at front
	72 in.	Penetration foam exposed
Benchmark (12.7-mm gypsum board)	24 in.	Cracking at back
	42 in.	Cracking at front
	78 in.	Penetration foam exposed
DC 315 over MD SPUF (18 mil WFT)	48 in.	Cracking
DC 315 over MD SPUF (18 mil WFT)	> 48 in.	No complete exposure of foam
DC 315 over MD SPUF (24 mil WFT)	48 in.	Cracking
DC 315 over MD SPUF (24 mil WFT)	> 48 in.	No complete exposure of foam
		DC 315 with SPUF ^{Footnote (5)} > Benchmark

Notes:

Footnote 1

The ASTM E 661 test protocol is a large-scale impact and load test procedure for floor panels. This protocol was used to evaluate the equivalency to gypsum board as the minimum Code-specified mechanical damage protection (i.e., 9.5 mm) and thicker (i.e., 12.7 mm) for the AHJs seeking a higher protection level.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Ultimate load applied following increased impact loading (30 lb. bag at increasing height). A measure of toughness or strength retention after successive impact energy.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

The same failure load as that applied to 12.5-mm gypsum board was used to evaluate equivalent or better performance.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

A 62.5-mm diameter steel ball is dropped at increasing heights in 150 mm intervals.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

The full-room fire test was conducted with damaged DC 315. The exposed foam was protected by the expanding intumescent coating (see Table, Note 6.)

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Language selection

Search

Content page