■ ■
■ ■
Although their movement is limited, control joint systems must still
pass the rigors of ASTM E 119 or UL 263 in accordance with Item
9 of the exception, but this is often done as a part of the overall
assembly’s initial fire test. Thus, the construction details of such
tested joints would be included as part of the overall assembly’s test
report or listing.
Perhaps the easiest way to think of this item is that it applies to
joints within an assembly and testing as part of the assembly’s
original fire test, which did not include movement but did include
testing on the protections of small surface cracking or control joints.
Conversely, the base paragraph and the requirement to test to
ASTM E 1966 or UL 2079 account for movement and address the
intersection between different assemblies.
Although the exceptions clearly state that fire-resistant joint systems
are not required at these nine specific locations, the code would still
not allow an unprotected opening through or between assemblies
that could jeopardize the structural integrity of the fire-resistive
assembly. As an example, consider the floor of a mezzanine within
an open room (see Item 6). While it would not make sense to provide
a fire-resistant joint to limit temperature rise on the unexposed
upper floor surface because heat and flames can go around the
assembly to reach the mezzanine, to protect against structural
failure of the mezzanine floor it is not permissible to leave a joint
in the ceiling unprotected if it could lead to heat in the mezzanine
floor assembly exceeding limits discussed in the section related
to fire tests. So, although Sections 712.1.5.1 and 715 could lead to
the assumption that joint protection is not needed, the continuity
requirements of Sections 711.2.2 and 712.1.15 and the fact that an
assembly must be constructed and installed as tested support code
officials’ expectations that breaches and their respective joints will
not compromise the structural integrity of the assembly.