← back to Dw Domain Fleet
sites/specifywallpaper.json
138 lines
{
"slug": "specifywallpaper",
"domain": "specifywallpaper.com",
"siteName": "Specify Wallpaper",
"port": 11131,
"siteEmail": "info@specifywallpaper.com",
"tagline": "Specify commercial wallcoverings with confidence.",
"heroHeadline": "Specify Wallpaper",
"heroSub": "Explore the collection",
"metaDesc": "Specify Wallpaper — Specify commercial wallcoverings with confidence. Free memo samples, expert trade service, and hand-holding on every order from Designer Wallcoverings.",
"nicheLabel": "designer wallcoverings",
"aboutCopy": "Specify Wallpaper curates designer wallcoverings for designers, architects, and discerning homeowners. Specify commercial wallcoverings with confidence. Every selection is backed by Designer Wallcoverings' decades of trade experience.",
"niche": {
"pos": [
"commercial",
"contract",
"class a",
"fire rated"
],
"neg": [],
"types": []
},
"theme": {
"accent": "#3a5f8a",
"bg": "#0c0e11",
"bgLight": "#eef0f2",
"ink": "#e8eaee",
"inkLight": "#161a1e",
"rule": "#c4cad0",
"serif": "Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif",
"sans": "-apple-system,'Inter',system-ui,sans-serif",
"palette": "slate",
"font": "georgia"
},
"monetize": true,
"heroImage": "https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0015/4117/7456/products/7e15d64102f5502083f5aa8db2f95189.jpg?v=1572310604",
"content": {
"lede": "A commercial wallcovering spec that gets kicked back is almost never wrong about the pattern. It is wrong about a fire rating, a scrub cycle, or a mildewcide the facility manager quietly requires. Writing the spec that survives value engineering is a different craft from choosing the paper.",
"sections": [
{
"h": "Know your product type before you write a word",
"body": "Commercial wallcovering is graded by ASTM F793, which sorts products into categories by durability. Type I is light-duty for spaces with limited traffic, Type II is the workhorse for corridors, lobbies, and patient rooms, and Type III is the heavy-duty armor for loading docks and high-abuse corridors. Specifying Type I where the owner needed Type II is the most common and most expensive mistake, because it passes design review and fails in eighteen months of cart traffic.\n\nWrite the type into the spec explicitly and tie it to the location, not the aesthetic. A quiet executive floor may genuinely only need Type I, but the same fabric-backed vinyl running down a school corridor has to be Type II at minimum. The category is a contractual performance promise, so name it, cite F793, and let the substitution debate happen against a standard rather than a preference."
},
{
"h": "Fire ratings are the line item that stops the project",
"body": "For most commercial interiors the governing test is ASTM E84, the Steiner tunnel test, which produces a flame-spread index and a smoke-developed index. A Class A rating means flame spread of 25 or under and smoke developed of 450 or under, and that is the threshold most codes demand for corridors and exit-access paths. If you specify a covering without a documented Class A rating for those locations, the plan reviewer will find it, and the delay lands on your desk.\n\nDo not accept a rating claim on a sample card. Require the manufacturer's actual E84 test report and, where the local code adopts it, NFPA 286 room-corner data for anything unusual. Vinyls clear Class A routinely; natural materials like grasscloth and some digital murals may not without a treatment or a special backing, so confirm the report matches the exact product and colorway you are writing, because coatings and inks change the numbers."
},
{
"h": "Write for the whole life of the wall",
"body": "A defensible spec covers three phases the design narrative ignores: installation, maintenance, and end of life. Call out the primer and adhesive by system, specify a mildew-resistant treatment for humid or below-grade walls, and state the required wall prep so the failure isn't yours when a builder skips it. For maintenance, cite the covering's scrubbability under ASTM D4828 and the cleaning agents the manufacturer allows, because a hospital's disinfectant can dissolve the wrong coating.\n\nThen write the substitution clause deliberately. Value engineering will come for the wallcovering, and a spec that only names a product invites a cheaper swap. A spec that names the performance floor — the F793 type, the E84 class, the width, the backing, the scrub cycle, and the environmental certification — forces any substitute to meet the same bar, which is how you protect the design intent without being in the room when the change order is written."
}
],
"guideTitle": "Quick checklist before you order",
"guide": [
{
"k": "F793 type",
"v": "Name Type I / II / III by location and durability, not by look."
},
{
"k": "E84 class",
"v": "Require the actual test report for the exact colorway; Class A for corridors and exits."
},
{
"k": "Backing",
"v": "Match backing (osnaburg, non-woven, paper) to substrate and moisture conditions."
},
{
"k": "Scrub + clean",
"v": "Cite ASTM D4828 scrubbability and the approved cleaning agents for the space."
},
{
"k": "Substitution floor",
"v": "Spec the performance minimums so any VE swap must still meet them."
}
],
"faqTitle": "Frequently asked",
"faq": [
{
"q": "What is the difference between Type I and Type II commercial wallcovering?",
"a": "Type I is light-duty for low-traffic spaces; Type II is the medium-duty standard for corridors, lobbies, and patient rooms. The grades come from ASTM F793."
},
{
"q": "What fire rating do commercial wallcoverings need?",
"a": "Most corridors and exit paths require a Class A rating under ASTM E84 — flame spread 25 or under and smoke developed 450 or under — but always confirm the local code."
},
{
"q": "How do I stop value engineering from swapping my wallcovering?",
"a": "Specify performance minimums, not just a product name: F793 type, E84 class, backing, width, and scrub cycle, so any substitute has to meet the same floor."
}
],
"about": "This is an independent reference for designers and architects who write commercial wallcovering specifications and want them to pass plan review and survive value engineering. We are vendor-neutral, cite the governing ASTM and NFPA standards, and take no advertising.",
"guidePage": {
"lede": "The spec is only half the job. The other half is the submittal review, where a contractor's substitution meets the standard you set — and where a vague spec quietly loses the design.",
"sections": [
{
"h": "Reading a submittal like an inspector",
"body": "When the contractor's product data comes back, check that the test reports name the exact product line and, ideally, the colorway. Inks, coatings, and metallic layers change flame-spread and smoke numbers, so a Class A rating on the base line does not guarantee it on the deep-pigment or foil variant you drew. A report dated years ago on a reformulated product is also a red flag worth a question.\n\nVerify the backing and width against the substrate you specified. A non-woven backing installs paste-the-wall and tolerates minor wall movement, while a traditional osnaburg backing wants a fully prepped, primed surface. If the submittal quietly swaps the backing to hit a price, the installation method and the warranty change with it, and that is exactly the detail a rushed review misses."
},
{
"h": "The environmental and health line items",
"body": "Institutional and corporate clients increasingly require documented environmental performance, so build it into the spec rather than bolting it on. Look for products certified to a recognized indoor-air standard for low VOC emissions, and note whether the client's sustainability program needs a manufacturer environmental product declaration for its own reporting. Healthcare projects add another layer: antimicrobial coatings and phthalate-free formulations are frequently mandated, not optional.\n\nThese requirements have teeth because they flow from the client's own compliance obligations, not from taste. A covering that fails the client's air-quality standard cannot be value-engineered back in, so surfacing the requirement early protects both the schedule and your credibility as the person who knew the constraint before the submittal did."
},
{
"h": "Coordinating with the wall, not just the room",
"body": "A wallcovering spec that ignores the wall assembly creates callbacks. Below-grade and exterior-facing walls carry moisture, and a vinyl with no mildew-resistant treatment will bubble and grow mold behind an impermeable face. In those conditions specify a breathable product or an appropriate treatment and require a moisture test of the substrate before installation, with a documented threshold the installer has to meet.\n\nJoint and corner detailing belongs in the spec too. Call out how the covering meets dissimilar materials, how outside corners are wrapped or terminated, and where a color break or trim reveal lands, because these are the transitions that read as sloppy if left to the field. The spec that anticipates the wall's real conditions is the one that still looks like the drawing a year after the ribbon-cutting."
}
]
},
"articles": [
{
"title": "Writing a wallcovering spec section that actually holds up in Division 09 72 00",
"slug": "writing-wallcovering-spec-section-division-09-72-00",
"dek": "Where wallcovering lives in CSI MasterFormat, how the three-part section is organized, and the lines a specifier has to get right before a project goes out to bid.",
"body": "In CSI MasterFormat, wallcovering is section 09 72 00, \"Wall Coverings,\" filed under Division 09 Finishes. A specifier who writes that section is not describing a pattern; they are writing a contract document that a contractor will price, a manufacturer will match, and an owner will hold everyone to. The pattern is chosen elsewhere. The section decides whether the installed job is enforceable.\n\nLike every technical section written to the Construction Specifications Institute's SectionFormat, 09 72 00 has three parts. Part 1 (General) sets the administrative rules: submittals, quality assurance, delivery and storage, and the environmental conditions required before and during hanging. Part 2 (Products) names the material and its measurable properties. Part 3 (Execution) covers surface preparation, adhesive, seam method, and the standard of the finished work. A section that skips Part 3 leaves seam quality and substrate prep to argument in the field.\n\nThe property lines in Part 2 are where a spec earns its keep. Rather than \"commercial grade,\" a defensible section cites ASTM F793, \"Standard Classification for Wallcoverings by Use Characteristics,\" and names the category the traffic requires. It cites CFFA-W-101, the Chemical Fabrics and Film Association's quality standard for vinyl-coated fabric wallcovering, and states the type — Type II fabric-backed vinyl runs roughly 13 to 22 ounces per linear yard. It states flame spread by test: ASTM E84 (\"Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials\") Class A, meaning a flame-spread index of 25 or less. Those references turn \"durable\" into something a lab report either confirms or fails.\n\nThe most common failure is a proprietary spec with no path for competition. Public work and many institutional owners require an \"or equal\" clause or a defined substitution procedure, and the exact rule varies by jurisdiction and by the owner's procurement policy, so a single-product section with no equal can draw a bid protest or a value-engineering fight. The cleaner approach is a basis-of-design product plus the performance criteria any equal must meet, so a substitution is judged against numbers rather than a sales relationship."
},
{
"title": "The submittal package: samples, product data, and the paper trail a specifier reviews",
"slug": "wallcovering-submittal-package-samples-product-data",
"dek": "What a contractor is required to submit before the first roll is hung, and what a specifier is actually checking when the package lands on the desk.",
"body": "After a project is awarded, the specification's submittal requirements come due. For wallcovering, the contractor typically owes product data, verification samples, and, for anything with a repeat, a control sample from the actual production run. Reviewing that package is a specifier's last checkpoint before material is ordered and the decision becomes expensive to reverse.\n\nProduct data is checked against the section line by line. If Part 2 called for an ASTM F793 category and ASTM E84 Class A, the submitted data sheet has to show both, tested, not asserted. A data sheet that lists a Class A rating \"when applied over a noncombustible substrate\" is a conditional pass, and the specifier records the condition so the field crew honors it, because ASTM E84 rates an assembly and the substrate is part of the claim.\n\nSamples serve a different job. A verification sample confirms color and texture against what was selected, but a run sample confirms that the dye lot the contractor actually bought matches. This is where a specifier writes the note that saves the job: require that all material for a continuous space come from a single production run, and that the contractor submit run numbers with the samples. Two rolls that read identically on a desk can differ visibly on a wall under raking light.\n\nThe review stamp carries a specific, limited meaning, and it is worth quoting the source. AIA Document A201, the standard general conditions, states in its submittals article that the architect's review is for conformance with the design intent and does not relieve the contractor of responsibility for dimensions, quantities, or means and methods. So \"Reviewed\" or \"No Exceptions Taken\" is not approval of the contractor's field work. A specifier who understands that line reviews for conformance to the documents and leaves execution with the contractor, which is exactly where the A201 draws it."
},
{
"title": "Fire testing, decoded: ASTM E84, NFPA 286, and which one your occupancy needs",
"slug": "wallcovering-fire-testing-astm-e84-nfpa-286",
"dek": "Flame-spread class is not one test. Here is how the tunnel test and the room-corner test differ, and why the building code sometimes demands the harder one.",
"body": "A specifier who writes \"Class A\" without knowing which test produced it is copying, not specifying. Interior finish flammability in the United States is judged by two very different methods, and the building code adopted by the local jurisdiction decides which applies based on occupancy and location within the building.\n\nASTM E84, the Steiner tunnel test, is the familiar one. A sample is mounted on the ceiling of a 25-foot tunnel and exposed to a controlled flame; the result is a flame-spread index and a smoke-developed index. Class A means a flame-spread index of 25 or less and a smoke-developed index of 450 or less. The test is inexpensive and repeatable, which is why most wallcovering data sheets lead with it and most commercial specifications reference it by default.\n\nNFPA 286, \"Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth,\" is the harder and more realistic one. Instead of a small tunnel sample, it burns the finish as installed on the walls and ceiling of a full-size test room and measures whether flashover occurs and how much heat and smoke are released. In the International Building Code, Chapter 8 (Interior Finishes) allows textile and expanded-vinyl wall finishes to demonstrate NFPA 286 compliance in place of the Class A tunnel rating, and the exact triggering language and section numbers depend on the IBC edition the jurisdiction has adopted, so a specifier confirms the local code before relying on either path.\n\nThe practical rule is to name the test the code official will ask for, not just the letter grade. For standard fabric-backed vinyl in a corridor, ASTM E84 Class A is usually sufficient and is what manufacturers certify. For heavier textiles, expanded vinyls, or occupancies where the adopted code triggers it, write NFPA 286 and require the report, because a Class A tunnel number does not satisfy a room-corner requirement and a plan reviewer will not treat them as interchangeable."
},
{
"title": "Basis of design versus proprietary spec: keeping a project competitive and enforceable",
"slug": "basis-of-design-versus-proprietary-wallcovering-spec",
"dek": "How to specify the exact look a designer wants without writing a sole-source document that stalls at bid or gets value-engineered out.",
"body": "Every wallcovering specification sits somewhere on a scale from open to closed. An open performance spec names only measurable properties and lets any conforming product win. A closed proprietary spec names one product and forbids substitution. Most real projects need a point in between, and choosing that point deliberately is a large part of the specifier's craft.\n\nThe basis-of-design method is the usual middle ground. The section names a specific product, the one the designer selected and detailed the job around, labels it \"basis of design,\" then lists the performance criteria that define an acceptable alternate: the ASTM F793 category, the CFFA type and weight in ounces per linear yard, the ASTM E84 class, the width, and the repeat tolerance. A competing manufacturer may propose an equal, but it is judged against those numbers, which keeps the bid competitive while protecting the design intent.\n\nA fully proprietary spec is legitimate in narrow cases. A tenant matching existing corridors across a portfolio, or an owner standardizing maintenance stock, has a real reason to write a single product with \"no substitutions.\" On publicly funded work, procurement statutes commonly disfavor sole-source finishes and may require a documented justification, and those rules vary by state and agency, so the language is used with cause rather than by habit.\n\nThe substitution procedure is the safety valve, and it belongs in Part 1. It should state when substitution requests are due — many project manuals set a cutoff around ten days before bid, though the number is the owner's to set — what the submitting contractor must provide to prove equivalence, and that the burden of proof sits with the party proposing the change. A specifier who writes that procedure clearly rarely has to fight a value-engineering proposal later, because the standard for an acceptable swap was fixed in writing before anyone sharpened a pencil."
}
],
"articlesLede": "In-depth guides and practical articles on designer wallcoverings."
},
"ga4": "G-F1HDLWEYE9"
}