ADVERTISERS
Sponsor this Website









CSI Technical Resources Page

Contents

Air, water, and vapor barriers are important components of the building assembly and have a significant impact on building performance, durability, and indoor environmental quality. Unfortunately, there is still confusion surrounding the fundamentals of air and moisture movement through a building enclosure, and the functionality associated with barrier membranes. The confusion grows when membranes perform more than one function. Continue reading at CSI.net

For many architects and specification writers, excellence in product performance, not construction, is the litmus test that separates providers who offer quality products from those who don't. In response to this emerging trend, some architectural wood flush door manufacturers are shying away from traditional prescriptive standards in favor of performance standards that respond to the new technological advances in door construction.

Performance-driven standards are paving the way for a new generation of wood flush doors that, in many cases, are superior to those produced in accordance with prescriptive standards. The door industry is not alone in embracing this new construction ethic. The switch to performance-driven quality standards, for example, is become increasingly evident within the concrete and fire protection systems industries where performance standards are currently in place and have been employed successfully.

Actually, the concept of a performance-driven standard is not new to the architectural door industry and its leading trade association, the Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA). The WDMA's current standard, the I.S. 1A, was preceded by the I.S. 2-A440, which established performance criteria for side-hinged exterior doors, including their ability to resist air and water infiltration and impact. In the past, architects have also incorporated in their "references" sections quality standards for wood flush doors developed by two other woodworking organizations - the Architectural Woodwork Institute and the Woodwork Institute of California. The latter sets standards for doors used primarily on the West Coast.

Unfortunately, these standards are not uniform, nor do they all emphasize performance. In fact, only the WDMA's I.S. 1A incorporates standards that will ensure reliability and longevity, as well as eye-pleasing aesthetics. There are several important changes in the 2004 edition of the I.S. 1A document, including:

  • The introduction of "Performance Duty Levels"
  • Listing of performance attributes and their values within duty levels
  • Publication of a suggested installation chart for each duty level
  • Removal of most of the "prescriptive" language governing construction methods
  • The addition of a section that addresses positive pressure fire doors
  • Introduction of a section dedicated entirely to aesthetics, including the appearance of faces and edges
  • References to a new face material--low pressure decorative laminates.

    Since there are now three performance duty levels - each based on "frequency and severity" of product usage - it is up to each specifier to determine which duty level is appropriate for the doors on a given project. Extra Heavy Duty has the highest minimum performance values while Standard Duty has the lowest. The I.S. 1A document contains a chart that can help architects determine which duty levels are appropriate for various door installations.

    Many current door specifications reference a series of performance tests developed by the WDMA. These tests are now incorporated into the I.S. 1A, 2004 edition. They include:

  • A cycle slam test to assess the performance of a door's hinges and closer, along with the door's overall performance during peak usage periods. In this test, a door is opened and closed at a rate of 24 cycles per minute or one cycle every 2.5 seconds. To ensure an uncushioned impact, the latching speed mode of the closer must be disengaged. A newly developed, non-prescriptive door type, subjected to a 1 million-cycle test never even required a re-tightening of the hinge screws. (The test protocol allows for an inspection of the door at least once every 25,000 cycles, at which time hardware can be lubricated and hinge screws tightened if necessary.) In order to properly inspect the door area where the hinges are attached, the hinge is removed from the door.
  • A hinge load resistance test to determine the ability of a wood door's vertical edge to resist the horizontal withdrawal of an attached hinge and to evaluate the various vertical edge designs, hinge types and fastening systems. According to this test, a stile and rail door may not actually require a stile if the door design can meet or exceed minimum attribute values.
  • A screw withdrawal test to determine the ability of a wood door component to resist the withdrawal of a screw that is perpendicular to the component.

    In addition to establishing test protocols, WDMA has established engineering models that can help door manufacturers develop more than adequate minimum values. Among other things, the models simulate stress typically associated with swinging doors and help analyze load distribution at the hinge.

    For years, flush door standards developed by WDMA used descriptors to help specifiers choose the door they wanted. For example, a specifier would typically refer to a "PC-5" door - a five-ply door with particle core. Under the latest version of I.S.1A, a door is specified using the performance duty level and the aesthetic grade. An example would be "Extra Heavy Duty, Premium Grade." If fire-rated doors are required, they must be clearly specified. Moreover, they must meet testing requirements established by local building codes. In many cases, these testing requirements have switched over to positive pressure. A section in the standard outlines the highlights associated with positive pressure-tested fire doors.

    Specifiers should recognize that while the shift to a performance-based standard has opened the door to more innovative construction methods, there is still a role for prescriptive guidelines to achieve the desired aesthetics. Fortunately, the latest I.S.1A standard recognizes all traditional face materials, including wood veneer, medium density overlay paper for premium paint, other paintable faces for custom paint and high pressure decorative laminates.

    Perhaps one of the most significant changes in the latest I.S.1A standard is the prominence given to low pressure decorative laminates (LPDL). Made from decorative laminate paper that has been saturated in reactive resins, these aesthetically pleasing facings are hot-pressed to a door surface to create a permanent bond. In fact, the paper doesn't just bond to the door, it thermally fuses to the door.

    Low pressure decorative laminates resemble their high-pressure counterparts in some ways, but there are distinct differences as well. For example, most high-pressure laminates are subjected to a one-step resin bath, allowed to dry, and pressed onto a phenolic backer. The high-pressure laminate is then glued to the door core. By contrast, low pressure laminates receive a two-step, resin bath, giving them greater scratch resistance. These laminates are then "direct pressed" to the door, creating a single-ply, monolithic door.

    Low pressure decorative laminates are typically applied to an engineered door core made of high-density (42 pounds) board. High-density boards are preferred for these laminates because of their improved physical properties, face screw holding power and their ability to resist sound transmission effectively.

    Since low-pressure laminates do not require a phenolic backer, they are immune to stress cracking, which can occur with high-pressure laminates, especially following a strong impact, or in areas around hardware components or a vision light cutout. With no phenolic backer, low-pressure laminates also do not display an unsightly black line where the door edges and faces meet, as is the case with high-pressure laminates.

    The addition of low-pressure laminates to the I.S. 1A quality standard provides architects with new prescriptive options to ensure that the wood flush doors they select meet their requirements for products that combine high performance with pleasing aesthetics.

    ________________________
    David San Paolo is Technical Director for The Maiman Company, an architectural door manufacturer located in Springfield, MO (    www.maiman.com).

    While many of today's stile and rail wood doors project a rich, highly-crafted image and provide many years of reliable service, they can spell trouble if individual components are incompatible with one another. This may require a heightened sense of vigilance on the part of specifiers unfamiliar with the details of door construction and design.

    With stile and rail door manufacturers now capable of matching a variety of custom architectural designs, it is quite likely that contemporary, historical, or even 90-minute fire-rated stile and rail doors will become the focal point of a building's permanent collection of fine furniture.

    Yet if stile and rail doors are to be fully functional, the selection of appropriate door components cannot take a back seat to design considerations. For example, doors with overlay moldings may require a lock rail or wider stiles to ensure compatibility with the hardware. Some hardware, such as slimline push bar exit devices, mounts close to the face of the door and requires a flat surface to operate properly.

    All hardware that complies with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) utilizes a lever for the retraction of the latch. If overlay moulding is positioned too close to the lever, it will not have the clearance required to operate smoothly.

    We sometimes see situations where the body and cover of the door closer hang down below the top rail and partially cover the raised or flat panel. This can create mounting problems for doors with a narrow top rail, while being aesthetically unpleasant. How can you avoid this potential dilemma? Simply make the top rail about 6" wide, thereby allowing the entire closer mechanism to be installed on the flat part of the top rail instead of hanging down over the panel.

    What if an opening calls for a two-lite door? This requires the lock rail to be adjusted upward, or the exit device to be relocated downward, so that the device is centered on the lock rail. Also, with this type of door, there is always the potential for someone's hand to slip off the top of the exit device and penetrate the glass, resulting in an injury. It is important to note that traditional wire glass does not meet the ANSI Z97.1 or the CPSC 16 CFR 1201 standard for safety glass. The risk of serious injury can be significantly reduced if the glass type complies with the safety glass standards.

    There are other traps to avoid when designing door layouts. For example, is the stile width adequate to house the latching hardware? Most hardware for architectural doors require at least a 5-inch wide stile. To be on the safe side, it's prudent to go with a 6-inch stile along with a 6-inch top rail. To avoid still other potential conflicts, it is also advisable to:

  • Design for mortise pockets that are generally 4 ½-inches deep.
  • Use lock backsets that are 2 ¾-inch on center.
  • Retain some dowels at the lock rail.
  • Specify bottom rails that are wide enough to meet ADA requirements and accept a kick plate.
  • Install viewers (if used) at a point where the door is at least 1 3/8-inches thick.

    Moreover, fully mortised door bottoms cannot be used in conjunction with a concealed vertical rod fire exit device or a mortised flush bolt. Nor should concealed closer bodies be used in stile and rail doors. Also, it is advisable to limit the use of a concealed closer or overhead stop arms in fire-rated doors.

    Due, in part, to cost factors, stile and rail doors are seldom manufactured using a single, exotic type of wood. Unlike wood veneer flush doors, stile and rail doors require several thicknesses of veneer and lumber. Possible choices include PS White Maple for the stiles and rails, and Quarter Figured Anigre or Birdseye Maple for the panel faces. Panel face veneer is usually very thin -- 1-36" to 1/42," and can readily be obtained in a majority of the exotic species.

    Another important consideration in specifying a stile and rail, or even a wood flush door, is the core material's "memory." In this instance, the term is used to describe a core material's ability to return to its original shape when a fastener, namely a "threaded-to-the-head" wood screw, is removed. Wood-based stile and rail cores have the best memory, while non-combustible (blocking) cores have no memory at all. Initially, both combustible and non-combustible cores (none mineral core) have more than adequate screw-holding power. But if a fastener is withdrawn, it must be replaced with a longer and larger diameter fastener -- one in the non-combustible blocking-type core -- to maintain an acceptable level of screw-holding power. Consider including a statement in your specification that reads as follows:

    "If non-through bolted fasteners are to be used in fire door cores, and they are removed for any reason, the replacement must be ½" (13mm) longer along with the next size larger root diameter fastener."

    Conflicts also should be avoided when specifying fire doors. True stile and rail fire doors are available from several manufacturers in all ratings through 90 minutes. A conflict can occur if the specifier doesn't realize that the 90-minute stile and rail door is 2-1/4" thick. It is imperative that the frame and hardware accommodate a 2-1/4"- thick door.

    A careful review of some of these common conflicts should ensure smooth sailing the next time you have a project requiring the use of architectural stile and rail doors. Let your imagination drive your plans, but keep an eye out for those potential pitfalls.

    _____________________
    David San Paolo is Technical Director for The Maiman Company, an architectural door manufacturer located in Springfield, MO (    www.maiman.com).

    The task of specifying gypsum board products has just become much simpler. As of December 1, 2004, a single ASTM International reference standard, ASTM C 1396, Specification for Gypsum Board, has replaced eight standards previously used to designate specific gypsum board products employed in commercial and residential construction.

    No technical changes have been made to the individual specifications incorporated into C 1396, which was established to avoid inadvertent inconsistencies in the requirements of individual products due to staggered document revision schedules.

    Incorporated into the new ASTM standard for gypsum board products are:
    C 36, Specification for Gypsum Wallboard
    C 37, Specification for Gypsum Lath
    C 79, Specification for Gypsum Sheathing Board
    C 442, Specification for Gypsum Backing Board, Gypsum Coreboard and Gypsum Shaftliner Board
    C 630, Specification for Water-Resistant Gypsum Backing Board
    C 931, Specification for Exterior Gypsum Soffit Board
    C 960, Specification for Predecorated Gypsum Board
    C 1395, Specification for Gypsum Ceiling Board

    To facilitate a smooth transition from the old standards to the new, all-encompassing standard, the gypsum industry agreed in 1999 on a five-year phase-in period during which product labels and literature would project both the new standard and the original product specifications.

    Robert Wessel, Assistant Executive Director of the Gypsum Association and Secretary to ASTM C11 Committee on Gypsum and Related Building Materials and Systems, said the period of dual labeling was designed to give the industry time to educate specifiers on the need to use ASTM C 1396 in place of the existing specifications.

    "Now that the individual product standards have been withdrawn and replaced with a single standard, C 1396, the building codes should soon reflect this change," he said. "Moreover, design professionals should make sure that their specifications use the C 1396 designation instead of the previous standards so that they are in compliance with both industry standards and code language." Wessel also stated that builders and code officials need to know that the new standard replaces the eight previous gypsum product specifications.

    __________________________
    This information courtesy of Bernie Allmayer of the Al Paul Lefton Company (    www.lefton.com).

    When I first served on an Institute committee, it was as a member of the specifications subcommittee. At that time, the Technical Committee (TechCom) comprised the chairs of its subcommittees. The specifications subcommittee met four times each year to work on SpecGUIDEs and SpecText, and chapter technical committees wrote the SpecGUIDEs that we reviewed. A short time later, CSI's involvement in both SpecGUIDEs and SpecText was terminated. Obviously, this had a significant impact on technical committees at all levels.

    TechCom was reorganized, divested of its subcommittees, and given revised charges. No longer in the business of producing documents, the committee's focus shifted to monitoring the industry and task teams, developing a schedule for regular review of CSI documents, and advising the Executive Committee of recommended activities.

    After years of contribution to SpecGUIDEs - a major technical activity for many chapters - the termination of those documents left a lot of technical chairs wondering what to do next. The older editions of Administrative References didn't offer much help, as other committees already did most of the suggested activities. Many chapters have standing education, certification, and programs committees, all of them quite capable of ensuring the presence of content that is "technical" in the CSI sense. About all that remained was the writing of technical articles for newsletters. Oddly enough, newsletter editors will tell you that no one seems interested in writing much of anything.

    As TechCom began its review of existing documents, participation by chapter technical committees became more difficult. The intensity of work at Institute committee meetings is amazing, and impossible to replicate in daily life, when jobs, families, and other commitments take priority. Even so, TechCom has sought volunteers for its "corresponding member" list, people who are called on to review and comment on various documents and ideas when immediate input is not critical.

    In the past year, TechCom has once again tried to find a way to revitalize chapter technical committees. In my opinion, expressed in previous columns, chapters have only to look close to home to find something to do; they do not need to wait for someone else to tell them what to do.

    Most of CSI's main documents began as individual attempts to solve a problem or improve communication. The Institute Board of Directors did not say, "We need a way to organize a section, a way to organize words on a page, and a book of rules on how to write specifications!" Instead, local solutions were developed, passed around, and eventually blessed and published as CSI documents.

    Unless we have solved all the problems of communication and coordination of construction documents, there is still work to be done, and our own members are already doing much of it. I suspect there are, in each chapter, people who have found better ways to do the things they do every day. And I believe that many of these solutions would be quickly put to use by others in our industry.

    TechCom, in an effort to rekindle the spirit that drove the growth of our organization, has assembled a list of ideas and challenges for technical committees at the chapter and region levels. This list has been sent to all region technical chairs and to all Institute Directors; their comments will be reviewed by TechCom as they are received. Next month we will take a look at some of the ideas, but for now I will leave you with these thoughts:

    Most of CSI's documents deal with organizing information for printed material, a response to the needs that existed when those documents were created.

    Today, or in the very near future, the challenge will be to organize and use electronic databases of information about entire facilities.

    Will we meet today's needs as well as our founders met those of thirty or more years ago? Or are we going to let someone else take over as the leader in construction document coordination?

    Views expressed in this column are the author's. © 2003 Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA
    on the web at     www.CSI-MSP.org.

    In last month's column we looked at a few highlights of the history of technical activities, from the grass roots proposals that eventually became important technical standards, to the termination of the SpecGUIDE program that resulted in the present lack of technical spirit. Many of the common complaints in the past few years have to do with the apparent death of the chapter technical committee, and what appears to be a lack of technical focus throughout the organization. As a result, one of TechCom's charges is to help revitalize the technical activity that has been such an important part of CSI. To meet this charge, TechCom set a few basic goals:

    • To help chapters and regions engage in worthwhile technical activities on their own initiative, rather than rely on direction from Institute.
    • To actively involve chapters and regions in the development and review of updates to CSI documents.
    • To expand the definition of "technical" from its traditional meaning of constructing and organizing text documents, to include the organizing and processing of electronic information, thereby opening a wide range of new possible technical activities.

    The outcome was a list of "Ideas and Challenges" for region and chapter technical committees. It is important to note that these are not make-work pastimes; they are serious proposals that can have an impact beyond the chapter. In this and following columns we'll look at some of the items from that list.

    Ideas and Challenges

    The first group of suggestions comes from the expanded definition of "technical". By including the organization and use of electronic data, we remove the barrier that seemed to limit previous work to text-based documents.

    1. Encourage regions and chapters to investigate needs related to processing electronic information, to develop solutions for those problems, and to share their results with other chapters and regions.

    2. Ask members how they have solved computer and data processing problems. Examples include styles and templates for word processing, sophisticated macros or utilities for word processing or CAD, and electronic forms.

    3. Anticipate the consequences of the growing power of CAD programs. How will the construction industry change if drawings can automatically produce material quantities, cost estimates, and specifications? What will the role of the specifier be?

    Has anyone in your chapter come up with ways to make it easier to process or use information, in either text or electronic format? Have you created a form that works? Do you have ways to improve coordination of documents? Have you found a way to increase productivity or reduce errors? If it's useful to you, it will probably be useful to other members, as well, so don't keep it a secret - tell your chapter and region technical chairs what you have done.

    © 2003 Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA
    on the web at     www.CSI-MSP.org.

    Although many of our documents began as individual efforts to solve problems, maintenance of existing documents should involve a larger number of participants. CSI offers the opportunity to participate in such Institute-level work through its Corresponding Committee program. All members are eligible to participate in corresponding committees; all that is necessary to be considered is to submit a form giving information about your experience and interests.

    Despite the existence of this opportunity, relatively few of CSI's members have taken part in review or revision of existing documents. We could certainly make better use of corresponding members, and region chairs are in an excellent position to encourage participation. Region chairs should:

    • Explain to chapter chairs how the corresponding committee program works, and ask them to pass this information on to their chapter members.
    • Encourage chapter chairs to actively seek out qualified individuals who might be interested in becoming corresponding members.
    • Develop region and chapter focus groups for technical topics.

    While we're trying to get members to contribute, we must remember that ours is a non-profit organization, and we generally don't pay people for their work. This makes public recognition of effort extremely important - not only to acknowledge those who have contributed, but to encourage participation by others. Region and chapter chairs should seek out and recognize individual, chapter, and region technical excellence.

    One of the most interesting ideas we discussed is the formation of a Council of Region Technical Chairs. This group would ensure that useful ideas, documents, and technology developed by individuals or chapters would be shared throughout the organization. By accumulating information about the abilities and interests of members, it would also recommend candidates for region and Institute task teams and committees.

    The council of RTC's could serve as the head of a structured virtual committee, including potentially all members, to offer assistance to TechCom when needed. Many TechCom tasks require quick action, and cannot wait for the time it would take to pass the issue on to regions and chapters and wait for a response. Other jobs would benefit from additional input, and many of those would be easier if there were a formal method for soliciting, evaluating, and accumulating responses. The council of RTC's could facilitate such efforts, making use of the personal relationships between RTC's and the chapter technical chairs.

    There has been much debate about the value of regions. Why should we keep them, when Institute committees can now communicate directly with all chapter chairs - or even all members? The potential for close personal relationships between Institute committees and region chairs, between region chairs and chapter chairs, and between chapter chairs and members, may be the most important benefit of our Institute-region-chapter structure. Sure, I am now able to e-mail a request to every one of our members, but you can guess what the response would be. The same request, coming from a friend in the same chapter or region, would be far more likely to get a response.

    Views expressed in this column are the author's.
    © 2003 Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA
    on the web at     www.CSI-MSP.org.

    Effective fire resistance and sound attenuation have long been important considerations in the design of multifamily dwellings, such as townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Both objectives can be met inexpensively through the use of gypsum board area separation walls-sometimes referred to as fire walls, party walls, or townhouse separation walls.

    Gypsum area separation walls are easy to erect and secure, and they meet all building code requirements. Fire resistive ratings easily reach two hours and more. And they can be erected up to four stories in height, depending on the manufacturer.

    Complying with codes
    Any area separation wall must meet certain basic requirements. It must be:

    • Continuous from the foundation to the underside of the protected roof sheathing or continue through the roof to form a parapet, and
    • Designed to allow for collapse of the construction on the side of the wall exposed to fire without collapse of the separation wall.

    Every model building code recognizes the suitability of gypsum board area separation wall systems for resisting fire and attenuating sound. Though gypsum has inherent fire-resistive qualities, each model building code mandates that any wall system used for area separation must first be fire tested according to a specific test standard, such as ASTM E 119,"Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials," or its equivalent.

    Solid gypsum area separation walls
    Gypsum board area separation wall systems come in two designs: solid systems and cavity-type systems. Cavity systems are constructed with components typically incorporated into either steel stud partition systems, or gypsum board shaft wall enclosures, such as those used to enclose an elevator shaft or duct shaft in a multi-story nonresidential building. Solid gypsum board type area separation walls systems incorporate three basic components:

    • One-inch thick type X gypsum board liner panels that are 2-feet wide and either 8-, 10-, 12- or 14-feet long.
    • Metal framing members, consisting of 2-inch-wide H-studs and U-shaped track.
    • "Break away" L-shape aluminum clips that soften at relatively low temperatures.

    For two-hour fire resistance, the area separation wall consists of two layers of 1-inch thick liner panels. The panels slide into a horizontal track at the foundation or floor level and into the vertical studs that hold them in place. An inverted section of track caps the wall. To continue the wall higher, a track is fastened to the capping track of the lower wall. The stacking process repeats until an inverted track caps the completed final story or roof parapet.

    L-shaped aluminum clips attach the gypsum board area separation wall to the adjacent wood frame structure. The clips attach to both sides of each H-stud at each floor or roof/ceiling intersection to provide lateral support for the area separation wall. The clips are designed to soften and break when exposed to high temperatures on the fire side.

    During an intense fire, when one side of the wall system experiences temperatures of 1100 °F or higher, the clips will soften and break away. In this way, the adjacent structure on the fire side may collapse without pulling down the fire-resistive separation wall. The clips on the opposite side of the area separation wall remain intact, since temperatures on that side will be far below the point at which the clip will soften. As a result, the fire-resistive wall system will remain standing, sparing the adjacent living space from significant damage.

    The clips must be manufactured from aluminum in a thickness and shape conforming to the requirements established by the representative fire test and the manufacturer of the area separation wall system. Otherwise the wall system may not function as intended.

    In short, gypsum board area separation walls offer an excellent low-cost solution for separating townhouses, condos, and apartments. They are code compliant for both fire resistance and sound attenuation.

    Michael Gardner is Director of Promotion and Code Services for the Gypsum Association, a trade organization that represents leading gypsum board manufacturers in North America.

    The paint industry, like so many others, is in the midst of great change. Attention has been given to lead abatement, lower VOCs, LEED certification, and indoor mold control. You would think these topics would cover it all, but there is another--"MPI." Anyone who uses Federal Specifications as a project reference standard needs to become familiar with the Master Painters Institute (MPI).

    During the early 1950's, the Federal Government developed Federal Paint Specifications. These specifications were written around solvent-borne products containing shellac, linseed oil, cottonseed oil, fish oil, and turpentine, common during that time. However, these specifications became outdated in the late 1950's with the introduction of latex and acrylic paint. In September 1999, a law regulating the amount of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) used in paint effectively wiped out the Federal Paint Specifications that had been written almost fifty years earlier.

    The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA); state governments, e.g. Georgia; and other major organizations, e.g. LDS Church, have adopted MPI Standards as their paint reference. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has, for the first time, developed a "Uniform Facilities Guide Specification" (UFGS) to replace guide specs previously used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Corp of Engineers (COE). The U.S. UFGS now mandates the use of products from the MPI approved products list. Since 2000, MPI has formed alliances with the Steel Structured Painting Council (SSPC) and the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA). MPI is currently working with the Green Building Council to develop a product listing based on performance rather than on VOC levels alone.

    The MPI system currently lists 59 manufacturers in 275 product categories grouped as Traditional Paint, High Performance Paint, Low Odor/VOC Paints, and Specialty Paints.

    MPI product certification must meet Detailed Performance, Evaluated Performance and Intended Use tests. Both Detailed and Evaluated Performance require MPI Lab tests. The Intended Use test requires that the manufacturers' product data meet the indicated test performance results.

    For more information about MPI, visit www.paintinfo.com