With James Hardie Linea™ Weatherboard you can achieve up to a 90 minute fire resistance rating. You don’t want your creativity to be restricted by boundaries. You don’t want to be told ‘it can’t be done’, and you don’t want to compromise great aesthetics for compliance.
So when you know that Linea Weatherboard’s 90-minute fire resistance rating means you can specify it within one metre of a boundary fence, there’s one less boundary to worry about. You’re free to do what you were hired to do: deliver a design that maximises your clients’ site and changes their lives.
The following construction method must be used to achieve a 90 minute fire rating:
- Use James Hardie mineral insulation 90mm
- Replace the building paper with James Hardie RABTM Board
- Use 16mm Gib Fyreline® lining one side fixed to GBTL 90
- 16mm thick James Hardie Linea Weatherboard fixed externally
James Hardie fire rated systems using Linea Weatherboard are also suitable for use on walls close to boundaries where Table 7.5 of C/AS1 is applicable.
June 9, 2010 at 8:54 pm
It strikes me that any cladding, including timber weatherboard would achieve the 90min rating you assign to Linear with Rab Board behind and 16mm Fyreline on the inside.
[Reply]
Singh Kamboj:
June 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Fire performance of any system relies on the fire resistance of materials used in the fire rated system. Linea Weatherboard is a non-combustible material and to achieve a 90 minute fire rating the thickness of fibre cement needed to be increased. For this very reason the building wrap has been replaced with RAB Board.
A 90 minute fire rating is a very harsh requirement and a combustible material such as timber weatherboard or ply etc. cannot achieve this FRR even if they are used in conjunction with RAB Board.
[Reply]
June 10, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Hi
Im interested in fire rating an area that is an internal wall…it protects a hay (feed) store area from habitable space. Ironically much of the partition wall on the non-habitable side is often wet as this is a washdown area (!)…but some is against hay…the danger is that this stuff can look fine but heat up internally. This partition also has to be strong to resist impacts from horse hooves…at least 15mm of ply is needed
So I think what I need is some sort of ‘exterior’ grade lining (for the wet) but that also has a decent fire rating. I thought that this could only be done through waterproofed H3 ply plus Fyreline on the inside, but thats not really protecting the wall framing….perhaps another solution is Linea? what is the impact resistance…is there any comprehensible data on that to compare it with something like Ply?
thanks
geoff
[Reply]
Singh Kamboj:
June 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
The wall you are planning to build is essentially an external wall. Considering the performance criteria you are trying to achieve, a wall clad with Linea Weatherboard over RAB Board, insulation in the wall cavity with Fyreline lining inside over ply will be quite robust construction to achieve the required fire rating and impact resistance at the same time.
Linea Weatherborad has been tested for soft body or hard body impacts and meets the requirements for normal use.
Using RAB Board and closing the studs spacing to 400mm c/c will further enhance the impact resistance and will be suitable for your situation.
[Reply]
Michaelangelo:
June 11th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Hi Jeff
Thought this may assist – its from UK. Let me know if you need more on MGO board
michaelangelodesign@gmail.com
cheers – Michael
Farm buildings: See extract below:
http://www.slecladding.co.uk/eternit.htm
Fibre-cement the replacement for asbestos-cement, which is now banned by law, is a much used product in the livestock industry on account of it’s ability to retain condensation.
On a frosty nights the warm breath from livestock condenses and freezes on the underside of metal sheets. Come the morning as the day warms up the ice melts and drips sometimes in considerable quantities on to livestock and their bedding.
In the case of fibre-cement the underside of the sheets have the ability to hold on to most of the droplets of water until the day warms up and the air currents dry them away.
Eternit fibre-cement profiled sheeting has a number of key advantages over other types of roofing/cladding materials.
[Reply]
kiwichic66:
July 19th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Eternit is part of Etex group, they must be about the size of James Hardie in fibre cement.. I think it is PBS distributors who represent them in New Zealand but I don’t think they do roofing.
[Reply]
David Curl:
June 11th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Hey Geoff.
Fire resistance ratings are allotted for either escape times or protection of other property. In your situation, the first applies.
The acceptable soultion to the C Clauses would class your siotuation as Fire hazard category 3 due to the combustability of stored items and would require fire rating separations of no more than 45/45/45, depending on vertical height of escape. (Is the residential single or 2 floor levels.) This means that if the hay ignites, the interceding wall will resist smoke flame and structural failing for the time needed to evacuate the building. If you are seeking property protection, then consider installing a sprinkler system.
[Reply]
June 10, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Anyone come across Magnesium Oxide Board yet? Wonderful fire rating, impact resistance and structural bracing comes in sheets of 1220x2440mm and varying thicknesses – oh yes it stands up to the wet and doesnt grow mould.
It’s coming soon. maybe it would suit your situation Geoff.
[Reply]
Tel:
June 11th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Magnesium Oxide Board is considered resistant to fire, mould and water, not fire, mould or water proof.
[Reply]
Michaelangelo:
June 11th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Thankyou Tel
[Reply]
June 11, 2010 at 10:06 am
Is this a one way fire rated system? What special hold-downs, etc if any are required to ensure the wall does not fall into a neighbouring property?
[Reply]
John McGirr:
July 8th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Hi Dean.
There is requirements for the wall to be structually sound for the fire rating time required, these include the fixing of the bottom plate to the floor and the stud to bottom plate fixing. The wall needs to be structually sound for the time nominated and support any roof loads etc. For example Gib have a very good detail suitable for a garage wall within 1 m of the boundary, this gives an example of the construction and structural fixings required.
[Reply]
June 11, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Hi Dean
The wall we have been discussing here is an internal scenario (a common wall) which is separating the store room and the living space. Considering the scenario the wall is to be fixed with the holding down bolts as required under NZS3604.
[Reply]
David Curl:
June 12th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Recent testing by Branz and recent guidelines from the DBh have identified the hold down fixings in NZS 3604:1999 do not provide the necessary kilonewton capacity and have revised the types and spacings. Refer Codewords 41 from http://www.dbh.govt.nz.
[Reply]
John McGirr:
July 8th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Hi David.
Thanks for the link to the DBH web site. Interesting reading, I am also told that the revision of NZS 3604: 1999 may update the requirements. Did you know that the type of bottom plate fixing may change and we could see more screw type anchors being used especially where high bracing demand is required.
[Reply]
June 17, 2010 at 12:12 am
This may seem a silly question but does anyone know if there is a solution to installing a fire rated cladding and internal lining system where the distance to the boundary is about 100/150mm and the neighbouring building is more or less on the boundary.(Other than a total re-build of the wall using concrete block or similar)
The building is a two storey residential house with timber framed cladding and rusticated weatherb’ds. Maintenance on the exterior will be nil of course, and flashings will be installed at roof and wall ends..
[Reply]
July 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Hi Geoff,
We offer many solutions in this area, single layer of 9.0mm cladding to external framing to provide fire ratings, also provide on boundry ratings and yes we are familiar with MGO, but calcium silicates still offer superior performance in single layer applications.
[Reply]
July 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I was told by the fire engineer when we were designing a building, that when you have a timber weatherboard facade, and when the facade material cannot be changed (ie heritage), it is possible to achieve two way FRR 30 minutes by using James Hardie mineral insulation. I have put this into Council with a note from the fire engineer, so far have got no objection.
Is this a viable solution for every building then? Even if Council agree to this construction, I would still consider it as a non two-way fire rating. What do your professional opinion?
[Reply]
July 7, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Hi Kuan
Unfortunately you can not achieve fire rating using James Hardie Mineral insulation with a timber weatherboard. The fire rated wall construction must be in accordance with a fire rated systems specification developed by the manufacturer based on the actual fire tests carried out.
It is not a good idea to substitute the products specified in a FRR system.
You can not achieve a two way fire rating using timber weatherboard and James Hardie mineral insulation. For a two way fire rated system using James Hardie mineral insulation, Refer to James Hardie ‘Fire and Acoustic technical specifications’.
[Reply]
March 10, 2011 at 5:25 am
Very good information in the article and comments.
[Reply]