I see that additional testing is being done to incorporate a degree of movement allowable within the UL Listing however the terminology within the sample UL still states that the penetrant must be rigidly support both sides. In California with State Fire Marhsall jurisdiction, the contractors are required to ensure that the supports prevent any movement. This interpretation of 'Rigidly supported" would negate the M factor provided. I see documentation from UL that indicates the intent of the phrase "rigidly supported" however the OSFM falls back to webster dictionary for the definition. Would it be acceptable to change the verbiage to "supported" or "Supported per applicable building code prior to fire stopping installation"
Hello - this would really need to be evaluated on a condition-by-condition basis. Please submit this as a Question case on the Hilti Construction Platform along with any specific UL Listed Systems or Hilti Engineering Judgments that this verbiage is needing to be evaluated on.
Hilti is proud to announce the launch of our engineering website, the HILTI CONSTRUCTION PLATFORM (HCP). This platform will be the home for all of your Fire Protection Engineering needs, including Engineering Judgment requests. You can find more information on how to access this new platform here: https://www.hilti.com/ej (US) or https://www.hilti.ca/ej (Canada.)
Regards,
Nate Crawford - Lead FPE