With no overarching standard to reference, some architects initially turned to makeshift standards, such as the GA-214-2021, Levels of Finish for Gypsum Panel Products guidelines.2 It made sense when considering the adjacent role of gypsum wallboard in fire containment and the interaction of it in wall systems when attaching to and encasing SFRMs. While GA-214-2021 may provide a useful analogue for finish quality; the materials, processes, and tools used to apply gypsum-based products are quite different from those used with IFRMs applied to exposed steel surfaces and, ultimately, the correlation was poor with the desired outcomes often being off the mark.
An important reason is, it is not aligned with AESS and does not take observer distance into account to differentiate between the levels. Further, the references to tape and the number of coats of compound make differentiating between GA-214 Levels 2 and 4 difficult for IFRMs as the addition of more coats would not necessarily ameliorate appearance in the case of IFRMs. Lastly, the premium Level 5 finish requires a skim coat of a differentiated material, something which is not permitted in the fire protection world without a corresponding fire test with the topping material.
In Europe, where IFRMs have surpassed SFRMs in cellulosic fire protection applications, the guidance is a bit more advanced and closer to the mark. The Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) Technical Guidance Document 16 (TGD 16), Code of Practice for Off-Site Applied Thin Film Intumescent Coatings,3 outlines three categories of finishes—basic, decorative, and bespoke—and promotes cost-saving, off-site IFRM applications so pre-coated beams arrive at the jobsite ready for assembly.
This ASFP standard is a dramatic improvement over the use of the AWCI/GA 214 standard. It is built to cater to IFRMs, including application variations such as orange peel. It also considers observer distance, which will be critical to identify when the use of the standard is appropriate. However, the use of this standard is problematic for several reasons.
The AESS standard describes five specific levels of finish—with each dramatically increasing in cost and the last one being a custom finish—whereas TGD 16 outlines three levels. The first two levels line up well with Level 1 and Level 2 for AESS, but would leave Levels 3, 4, and custom all in extreme variation of the “bespoke” category.
In AESS, the biggest increase according to the cost matrix comes between Levels 3 and 4; much more so than between Levels 1 and 2; and this would be equally the case when determining the variation between appearing smooth from less than 5 m (16 ft) away—the only observer distance referenced in the decorative finish guidelines in TGD 16—or being actually smooth, which is the expectation of AESS Level 4. These discrepancies in the finer points of the “bespoke” category would likely further lead to less predictability in estimating within this category.
