Does anyone out there have any information or reasoning behind what may have prompted this change? I have no strong feelings one way or the other, just curious, and want to be prepared in case anyone asks me.
.
Interestingly, there is no listing for the change on the MasterFormat website, 2018 Revisions; but it has been included in the 2018 print edition.
.
AVITRU included parallel sections (Fireproofing and Fire Protection) for the Applied, Intumescent, and Board sections in their March 2019 quarterly update. However, the prior “Fireproofing” sections (and corresponding Evaluations) are dated June 2014, whereas the new “Fire Protection” sections are dated March 2019, but no corresponding updated evaluations.
.
Thanks in advance.
David, I’m just shooting from the hip early on a Monday morning, and with out the benefit of a second cup of coffee, but my guess is the term “fire protection” is, in someone’s mind - and I can’t say I disagree, a more accurate term for the work result.
I go 'round and 'round with some of the project architects about the correct use of the terms “fire-rated,” “fire resistive,” and “fire proof.” One of my favorite [not] drawing note terms is “fire-treated.” Oh, really? So you want to char the wood that will be used as blocking or nailers in your building? 
I know someone will chime in and say charred wood is more flame resistant than that which is not treated so but that is a topic for another thread.
More than the change in terminology itself, the part I have questions about is why this doesn’t show up in the revisions list. I can’t imagine this type of thing doesn’t get tracked and discussed ad nauseum in committee … though I have no experience in the MF committee to know if that is correct or not. Would love to hear any insights as to how this can be changed without tracking it and disclosing it on MasterFormat.com.
There could have been a couple of reasons that may have instigated the change, either singularly or in combination:
-
The level 2 title is “Fire and Smoke Protection” but none of the narrower scope level 2 titles mention “Fire Protection.” In actuality, there really is no such thing as “fireproofing”–just materials that improve the fire resistance of a material for a certain period of time (i.e., extended “protection” of an assembly).
-
Chapter 7 of the IBC is titled “Fire and Smoke Protection Features,” and nowhere in the chapter does it mention “fireproofing”–or anywhere else in the IBC.
When a change is submitted for review, a “rationale” statement is required. Maybe someone on the committee could provide the statement submitted.
It would be great for CSI to include the rationale statements, or a synopsis of them, for each change listed in the revisions on MasterFormat.com. That would largely prevent the wondering of why a change was made. It won’t prevent disagreements, but it would at least offer some transparency for why a change was implemented.
The change is likely due to simple realism – a recognition that, as mentioned above, “there really is no such thing as ‘fireproofing’–just materials that improve the fire resistance of a material for a certain period of time…”
Similarly, anyone still using the term “foolproof” might well consider substituting its more realistic alternative, “fool-resistant”…
FYI: the level 2 title in question 07 80 00 - Fire and Smoke Protection is exactly the same as it was as 07800 in the 1995 Edition of MasterFormat. This is not a recent change… Prior to that edition fire protection was specified in Division 10 - Specialties.
I second the comments about “-resistant” versus “-proof”.
I have to regularly remind our staff to use the former rather than the latter.
As a wise man once wrote, “Anything will burn if you use enough gasoline and dynamite.”
Don’t get me started on “bulletproof”.
Scott, I also don’t use the term “idiot-proof.” That is to underestimate even the average idiot. I like to say “idiot-friendly.”
Hmmm. Does this apply to other uses of the word proof elsewhere in MasterFormat? Waterproofing? Dampproofing? Lightproof?
Good question, anon. I sure hope “waterproof” can be taken literally. When I think of water-friendly I think of a sponge.
This discussion assumes one definition of PROOF as in “impenetrable” or “impervious.” In fact, the term can also be synonymous with “resistant” or “repellent.”
So PROOF doesn’t necessarily refer to an absolute condition, and can accurately be used in words like waterproof to refer to something that resists water penetration without implying it is absolutely impervious.
Jeffrey, couldn’t the same statement be made about the use of the “proof” in fireproof?
i.e.: It is not meant to refer to an absolute condition, and can accurately be used in “fireproof” to refer to something that resists fire without implying it is absolutely impervious to fire.
Jeffrey, I don’t think I can agree with you on that. ASTM D1079 Standard Terminology Relating to
Roofing and Waterproofing defines waterproofing as follows:
waterproofing, (v) treatment of a surface or structure to prevent the passage of water in its liquid phase under hydrostatic pressure.
I certainly don’t want a manufacturer of a failed waterproofing membrane to come back to me and say “i never said it was impervious to the passage of water!”
yikes
My point was only that “proof” isn’t inherently inaccurate, and seemingly less definitive terms like “resistant” or “protection” are somehow more accurate.
Nothing is totally “proof” and there are often standards or other language that establishes the degree of resistance or performance. (Industry standards, manufacturer’s warranties, etc.)
Bulletproof resistance is defined by various categories related to type of ordinance. Waterproof performance may be subject to limits like the head of water applied. Fire protection is subject to limitations related to exposure time and temperature – it is expected to fail under certain conditions, as will all materials and structures.