Systems under pressure: The hidden costs behind sprinkler system downtime

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionResearch

IFSJ’s analysis looks at how regulation, construction activity and long term performance considerations are influencing fire sprinkler strategies worldwide

Fire sprinkler systems are continuing to gain traction as construction activity expands across multiple building types and regulators apply closer scrutiny to compliance and long-term system performance.

Alongside new installations, attention is shifting toward how systems are maintained, monitored and adapted over their service life.

Market overview

Future Market Insights (FMI) values the global fire sprinkler system market at USD 14.6 billion in 2025 and projects it will reach USD 24.5 billion by 2035, representing a compound annual growth rate of 5.3%.

According to FMI, wet pipe systems account for the largest share at 55% due to their established reliability and compatibility with standard water supplies, while commercial buildings represent 45% of total demand.

Residential construction is also contributing to growth as developers expand formal compliance programmes.

In industrial environments, Verified Market Reports (VMR) places the global industrial fire sprinklers market at USD 4.5 billion in 2024, with a projected value of USD 7.2 billion by 2033.

VMR forecasts a CAGR of 6.5% from 2026 to 2033, linking growth to industrial infrastructure modernisation, higher safety mandates and insurance driven compliance requirements.

Across both datasets, warehouses, logistics centres and large footprint facilities consistently appear as high demand segments.

These environments combine high asset values with operational sensitivity to downtime, increasing the appeal of automated suppression systems that integrate monitoring and diagnostic functions.

Maintenance considerations are therefore becoming a core part of procurement decisions, particularly where system reliability over decades is weighed alongside installation cost.

Strengths shaping demand

FMI describes fire sprinkler systems as offering dependable automated activation across a wide range of occupancies, including offices, manufacturing sites, residential complexes and warehouses.

VMR highlights ongoing development in corrosion resistant materials, improved nozzle design and water efficient activation mechanisms, alongside growing adoption of IoT enabled monitoring and predictive maintenance tools.

Bringing more than 35 years of industry experience, Jim McHugh, President of AGF Manufacturing Inc.

and a board member of several international fire protection bodies, provided context on how these factors are shaping demand.

McHugh said: “The global fire sprinkler market continues to show steady growth, driven by urbanisation, stricter building regulations and increased awareness of life-safety risks.

Commercial and industrial construction remains the largest demand segment, particularly warehouses, logistics centres, healthcare facilities and high-rise developments.

While North America maintains the highest penetration of automatic sprinkler systems, adoption is accelerating in Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia as codes evolve and insurers exert greater influence on fire protection strategies.”

VMR also notes that digital monitoring platforms are gaining ground in industrial settings, enabling condition-based inspections and earlier identification of faults.

These capabilities are particularly relevant where false activations, undetected corrosion or delayed repairs can disrupt production and inflate operating costs.

Challenges linked to maintenance and integration

FMI outlines a series of technical and operational challenges that affect both installation and long-term upkeep.

These include achieving appropriate spray coverage where ceiling layouts, HVAC systems and electrical services restrict head placement, as well as coordinating supply chains when systems rely on components from multiple manufacturers with differing lead times.

Maintenance related risks remain a recurring theme.

FMI identifies corrosion as a persistent issue, citing oxygen exposure in dry pipe systems and chemical reactions in wet pipe systems using untreated water.

VMR similarly highlights frequent maintenance audits, high lifecycle costs and incompatibility within older facilities, where outdated piping, limited space and low water pressure complicate upgrades.

McHugh said: “Market dynamics vary regionally.

Europe traditionally emphasises passive fire protection, but recent regulatory changes and high-profile fire tragedies have increased interest in active suppression systems, especially in residential and mixed-use buildings.

Emerging markets are investing heavily in modern infrastructure, creating opportunities for standardised, internationally compliant sprinkler solutions.

“Across all regions, system designers are prioritising reliability, ease of installation and system longevity.

High quality products that reduce installation time, limit potential failure points and expedite maintenance and testing are increasingly favoured as the industry balances performance, compliance and cost efficiency.”

These pressures are encouraging wider use of application specific designs, such as dry pipe systems for cold environments, deluge systems in chemical processing and pre action systems in electronics manufacturing, as noted by VMR.

Each option brings different inspection and testing demands, reinforcing the need for skilled personnel and clear maintenance planning.

Outlook

Across all regions, maintenance capability and retrofit readiness are emerging as practical differentiators.

VMR points to predictive maintenance, AI enabled diagnostics and data driven inspections, while FMI highlights ongoing corrosion control and coordination challenges that influence lifecycle costs.

For manufacturers, installers and asset owners, the direction of travel places sustained emphasis on materials, monitoring tools and system designs that support long term reliability with fewer disruptions.

This was originally published in the February 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Firefighting UAV swarm study outlines AI inspection and cyber defence approach

by Aerial FirefightingFeatured NewsFire SuppressionMiddle East - Breaking NewsResearch

UAV swarm design for firefighting missions

A peer reviewed paper describes a six-drone UAV swarm framework for firefighting operations that aims to maintain mission continuity while reducing exposure to cyberattacks on inter-drone communications.

The study is titled “A Cyber-Resilient UAV Swarm Framework for Fire-Fighting with AI-Based In-Flight Defect Inspection”, authored by Ahad Alotaibi and Abdullah Alrasheedi of the Department of Advanced Technology, Canadian College of Kuwait, Al Jahra, Kuwait, and published in the Journal of Computer and Communications, Vol.14 No.1 (January 2026).

The proposed architecture uses five operational drones assigned mission roles such as thermal observation, environmental sensing, close-range visual assessment, payload support and communications extension.

It also adds one Inspector/Commander drone positioned to supervise, capture inspection imagery and act as a coordination node linking the swarm to the Ground Control Station (GCS).

The paper frames the approach around two risk areas in swarm missions, physical degradation in fire-ground environments and cyber threats exploiting wireless coordination traffic.

AI inspection and cyber-resilient communications approach

The framework includes a mobile application called Drone Inspector that manages pre-processing, cloud submission and alerting for in-flight defect inspection imagery.

The workflow described has the Inspector/Commander UAV capturing high-resolution images of neighbouring operational drones at defined intervals and sending them through the swarm communications layer to the Drone Inspector application.

The application then submits images to Amazon Rekognition Custom Labels via API and receives defect labels with confidence scores.

The paper describes defect categories including exposed wiring, landing gear damage, landing gear misalignment and deformation of landing components.

Inspection frequency is described as adaptive, with inspections every two minutes under nominal conditions and every 30 seconds in higher risk areas linked to gas sensor readings indicating proximity to an active fire zone.

In the implementation described, the application triggers a critical alert to the Ground Control Station when confidence exceeds a defined threshold, with the paper describing a threshold of 80%.

For communications security, the paper proposes subnet segmentation and Route Optimization for Autonomous Systems (ROAS) to reduce the feasibility of Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) and traffic manipulation attacks.

Subnet segmentation is described as dividing the swarm network into role-based subnetworks with routing policies controlling inter-subnet communication.

ROAS is described as a dynamic routing approach intended to adjust paths based on network conditions and topology changes to reduce persistent interception points.

Evaluation approach and reported results

The paper describes evaluation across physical deployment feasibility, AI inspection workflow performance and cybersecurity simulation.

It describes a six-UAV deployment consistent with the proposed architecture, with the Inspector/Commander UAV maintaining a supervisory position to capture imagery and support communication.

Example UAV platforms named include DJI Matrice series platforms and an Autel EVO Max model, with additional roles described for payload delivery and communications relay.

Live fire was not used for safety reasons.

The paper describes using manoeuvres, formation flight and environmental stressors such as wind variability to emulate operational challenges relevant to emergency response.

For AI defect detection, it describes Amazon Rekognition Custom Labels trained on a labelled dataset including normal conditions and representative defect scenarios, with reported classification metrics including precision, recall and F1-score.

For cybersecurity simulation, it describes a network emulation environment built in GNS3, using a Kali Linux attacker node and Ettercap for adversarial traffic injection, with a comparison between a baseline flat network and a secured configuration applying segmentation and ROAS.

The paper references EtherApe traffic visualisation and describes figures intended to show traffic concentration through the attacker node under baseline conditions, followed by more balanced traffic patterns after defences are applied.

Across these experiments, the authors report reduced attack success rates, early detection of defects and improved operational reliability within the combined inspection and network defence framework.

The paper presents the system as a hierarchical swarm design that links physical integrity monitoring and cybersecurity measures within a single operational framework.

PFAS plan outlines UK monitoring and regulatory steps through 2028

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionHealth and SafetyResearchSafety

PFAS plan sets three pillars for action

A UK government policy paper has been published setting out a framework for managing PFAS risks across society and the environment.

The UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) published the policy paper, titled PFAS Plan: building a safer future together, updated 3 February 2026.

The plan is structured around three pillars: understanding PFAS sources, tackling PFAS pathways, and reducing ongoing exposure to PFAS.

PFAS are described as a group of thousands of chemicals, with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) definition used to guide the actions in the plan.

The paper identifies widespread use across sectors including firefighting foams, medical devices, textiles, packaging, construction and electronics manufacture.

Emma Hardy MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Water and Flooding), said: “Together, we can take a coordinated approach to make sure that ‘forever chemicals’ are not a forever problem.”

Monitoring, mapping and research actions

PFAS have been found in remote parts of the globe such as Antarctica.

They are characterised as highly mobile, persistent, and able to accumulate in soils, plants and animals, particularly in aquatic environments.

Monitoring data shows PFAS present in approximately 80% of surface water samples, approximately 50% of groundwater samples, and all fish samples.

English water companies carried out more than 770,000 analyses for individual PFAS in 2024 to inform drinking water assessments.

The plan commits to continuing annual monitoring of 2,400 PFAS samples from the freshwater environment in England.

In Scotland, annual monitoring will continue with an expanded network from around 300 samples in 2025 to 500 samples in 2026.

By the end of 2026, the Environment Agency’s PFAS multicriteria Geographic Information System (GIS) prioritisation map is to be made available to all public sector bodies across England, with the option of a dedicated interactive website by the end of 2027.

Soil monitoring will be strengthened through a British Geological Survey feasibility study and pilot sampling at a minimum of five representative locations across England.

A multi-year assessment of PFAS contamination in estuarine and coastal environments in England is due by February 2028, based on targeted sampling and analysis of sediment, fish and benthic invertebrates.

The government will also consider adding further PFAS to the UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR), following an industrial emissions consultation published in August 2025.

Regulation, foams and exposure measures

The UK’s obligations under the UN Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) include prohibitions on PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS, including their salts and related compounds.

Following a May 2025 convention-level agreement to list additional PFAS for global elimination, particularly long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), the government is determining how to implement this domestically.

A proposed UK REACH restriction on PFAS in firefighting foams is currently under consultation.

Once the Health and Safety Executive has published its final opinion, a ministerial decision will be taken on whether to implement the restriction, with devolved government consent.

On exposure, the plan identifies multiple pathways including diet, drinking water, indoor dust and skin contact.

The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment is undertaking an independent review of PFAS, including whether different PFAS can be assessed together and whether health-based guidance values can be set.

The Food Standards Agency is working with the National Reference Laboratory to develop and validate PFAS tests for food, alongside ongoing monitoring of PFAS in food contact materials.

In Scotland, a statutory drinking water standard of 0.1 µg per litre for the sum of 20 named PFAS compounds has been in place since 1 January 2023.

In England and Wales, updated Drinking Water Inspectorate guidance requires monitoring of 48 named PFAS, with concentrations at or above 0.1 µg per litre reported as a water quality event requiring action.

The government will consult on introducing a statutory PFAS limit for England’s public water supply.

Further actions cover industrial emissions, including new cross-sector guidance for regulators and operators on PFAS handling, monitoring and disposal, and the development of environmental thresholds for emissions to air, land and water.

On waste and legacy contamination, the plan commits to further work on PFAS in landfill and waste routes, and a national framework to prioritise sites affected by historic PFAS pollution.

The plan is described as a first step, with implementation to be reviewed through the statutory Environment Improvement Plan reporting cycle.

BSI report sets out UK fire safety standards work for 2024–2027

by Breaking NewsFire SuppressionPassiveResearchSafety

Fire safety standards programme report details revisions, plans and committee role

The British Standards Institution has published its first annual overview of how the UK’s fire safety standards programme is being run, what changed in 2024–2025 and what is coming next in 2026–2027.

The document was launched at BSI’s Annual Fire Safety Conference on 29 January 2026. It comes from the Fire and Built Environment Sector Policy and Strategy Committee, known as FSH/0, which sits at the top of BSI’s fire safety standards structure for the built environment.

Rather than being a technical standard itself, the report functions as a map of the standards system. It explains who is involved, how priorities are set, which standards have recently been updated and which major projects are in the pipeline.

BSI frames this annual publication as part of a push for greater transparency, making standards work easier to understand and follow beyond the relatively small circle of people directly involved in committees.

Who FSH/0 is and why it matters

FSH/0 operates at the highest tier of the national standards framework for fire safety. Its remit covers the full life of a building, from design and construction through occupation, management, maintenance and eventual end of life.

In practical terms, this means it looks across everything that touches fire safety in buildings, including fire precautions, fire protection systems and the infrastructure that supports safe evacuation and firefighting.

The committee performs four main roles.

First, it sets strategic priorities for developing new standards and revising existing ones, deciding where effort should be focused.

Second, it carries out horizon scanning, looking ahead at emerging risks that could shape future standards. The report gives examples such as lithium-ion battery fires, new energy systems, increased automation, digital building systems, new construction materials and modern methods of construction.

Third, it coordinates specialist technical committees to reduce duplication and keep different strands of standards work aligned.

Fourth, it provides a national forum where regulators, fire and rescue services, manufacturers, installers, consultants, building owners, academics and professional bodies can contribute to standards development.

In effect, FSH/0 sits between government policy, industry practice and the detailed technical work of standards committees.

Leadership, structure and how the system is organised

FSH/0 is chaired by Aman Sharma MBE. Under his leadership, the report highlights a focus on strengthening the overall standards infrastructure and widening participation, including bringing in early-career professionals and people with expertise in digital and emerging technologies.

The committee oversees around two dozen specialist technical committees. The report names several key examples, including committees covering fire detection and alarms, fire precautions in buildings, hazards to life from fire and fixed firefighting systems.

It also maintains formal links with committees working on related areas such as construction design, digital modelling, accessibility, lifts, furniture flammability, personal protective equipment and explosion safety. FSH/0 works closely with CB/0, BSI’s broader built environment committee.

Day-to-day coordination is supported by a dedicated BSI Standards Committee Manager, and FSH/0 typically meets several times a year to review progress, approve new projects and respond to emerging issues.

Who was around the table in 2024–2025

The report sets out who was represented on FSH/0 during 2024–2025, giving a sense of how broad the committee’s membership is.

Members included the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP), Euralarm, the Fire Industry Association (FIA), the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE), the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), Northern Ireland Building Regulations, the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Government.

BSI notes that this mix covers fire engineering, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, building design, risk assessment, construction, enforcement and regulatory policy, rather than being dominated by any single perspective.

How the work connects to Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2

A significant strand of recent standards activity is explicitly framed as aligning with recommendations from Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

One of the clearest examples is BS 8674:2025, which sets out a framework for the competence of individual fire risk assessors. The report links this to recommendations around clearer competence standards and potential future mandatory accreditation.

The report also highlights work on an amendment to BS 750, the standard for underground fire hydrants. This is described as a direct response to Inquiry Recommendation 40, and aims to clarify when and how flow coefficients should be measured.

More broadly, BSI describes ongoing engagement with government and industry to keep standards aligned with evolving policy in the post-Grenfell landscape.

Relationship with the Building Safety Act and Fire Safety Act

BSI states that its standards work in 2024–2025 has been closely aligned with both the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Fire Safety Act 2021.

The report groups several key documents within this framework: BS 8674:2025 on fire risk assessor competence, BS 9792:2025 on fire risk assessment for housing, PAS 79-1 on non-housing fire risk assessment and PAS 9980 on fire risk appraisal of external walls.

These are presented as tools that support accountable persons, responsible persons and dutyholders in meeting their legal responsibilities.

How BSI has supported understanding and implementation

Beyond writing standards, the report describes a range of activity aimed at helping the sector understand and use them.

BSI Knowledge has published explanatory articles on standards such as BS 9991, BS 8674, BS 5839-1 and BS 5266-1.

The organisation has also run sector briefings and events on topics including construction product regulation, competence and legislative change.

There has been collaboration with bodies such as the Institution of Fire Engineers and the Fire Sector Confederation, particularly around BS 8674.

On PAS 9980, BSI continues to support its use within government remediation frameworks and Building Safety Fund guidance. A structured revision programme began in 2024, with main consultation taking place in 2025.

BSI also runs an Education Hub aimed at educators, researchers and practitioners who want to engage more closely with standardisation.

What actually changed in 2024–2025

Several major standards were revised or published during this period.

BS 9991:2024, the main residential fire safety standard, underwent a substantial update. Its scope was expanded to cover residential care homes. Provisions on sprinklers were updated, including for single-stair buildings and height thresholds. The standard adopted European fire-resistance classifications for doors and strengthened guidance on smoke control and evacuation lifts in taller buildings.

BS 9792:2025 set out a clearer framework for fire risk assessment in housing, including a nine-step methodology and guidance for assisted living and supported housing. It is designed to sit alongside PAS 79-1 and PAS 9980 as part of a national approach to risk assessment across different building types.

BS 8674:2025 introduced three competence levels for fire risk assessors: Foundation, Intermediate and Advanced. It covers not only technical knowledge but also skills, behaviours, ethics, supervision and continuing professional development, and is linked to future plans for mandatory accreditation under the Building Safety Act.

BS 5839-1:2025, covering fire detection and alarm systems in non-domestic buildings, added a new section on system modifications, tightened controls on acceptable variations, updated guidance on manual call points and clarified expectations for automatic detection in sleeping-risk areas.

BS 5266-1:2025, the emergency lighting standard, expanded its scope to cover emergency escape lighting, standby lighting and local-area emergency lighting, placed greater emphasis on lighting uniformity and aligned more closely with European standards EN 1838 and EN 50172.

PAS 9980 was under revision during this period, with consultation completed in 2025 and publication expected in Q2 2026. Together with PAS 79-1 and BS 9792, it forms a cross-building-type framework for fire risk assessment and appraisal.

What is coming in 2026–2027

The report sets out a substantial forward programme of work.

BS 9994 is planned as a new specification for creating, documenting and managing fire strategies throughout a building’s lifecycle. It is intended to standardise structure, terminology and review processes, replacing and expanding on PAS 911. Public consultation is expected in Q1–Q2 2026, with publication likely in late 2026 or early 2027.

BS 9996 will cover the commissioning and maintenance of integrated fire safety systems, including alarms, suppression, smoke control, evacuation lifts and cause-and-effect logic. The aim is to ensure that changes to systems do not undermine the original fire strategy. A Draft for Public Comment is expected in Q2–Q3 2026, with publication in 2027.

The revised PAS 9980 is due for publication in Q2 2026, with clearer decision pathways, terminology and alignment with the wider BS 999X family of standards.

PAS 9970-1 and PAS 9970-2 will address fire safety during construction. The first covers organisational and site fire safety, while the second deals with temporary fire detection and alarm systems on construction sites. Consultation is expected in Q1 2026 and publication in Q4 2026.

A revision of BS 9990, covering non-automatic firefighting systems such as wet and dry risers and firefighting mains, is expected to go to consultation in Q3–Q4 2026, with publication in 2027.

An amendment to BS 750 on underground fire hydrants is planned for consultation in 2026, again responding to Grenfell Inquiry Recommendation 40.

Finally, BS 9999, the main non-domestic fire safety standard, is scheduled for a major update with consultation in Q2–Q3 2027 and publication in 2028. The revision is intended to align with post-Grenfell reforms and with BS 9991, BS 9994 and BS 9996, covering issues such as fire strategies, evacuation planning, dutyholder responsibilities and digital records.

How people can get involved

The report emphasises that standards development depends on broad participation rather than being driven solely by BSI.

Individuals and organisations can apply or be nominated to join technical committees, serve on drafting panels for specific standards and respond to Drafts for Public Comment via the Standards Development Portal.

Contributions can also be made through professional bodies such as the Institution of Fire Engineers, the Fire Industry Association, the Association for Specialist Fire Protection and BAFSA.

BSI also invites evidence or case studies to support FSH/0’s horizon-scanning work, alongside engagement through consultations, calls for evidence, conferences and roundtables.

What the report presents FSH/0 as doing

Overall, the report positions FSH/0 as the central coordinating body for UK fire safety standards, increasingly transparent through the publication of this annual overview, closely aligned with post-Grenfell reforms and actively managing a wide programme of revisions, new standards and PAS projects across 2026–2027.

It presents this work as part of maintaining a coherent, nationally consistent fire safety standards framework for the built environment.

Pakistan launches three-phase fire safety audit across government and commercial sites

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionSafety

Pakistan audit ordered for 2,368 buildings

Sindh Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah ordered a province-wide fire safety audit covering major government, private and commercial buildings, with 2,368 buildings identified for an initial inspection phase.

Business Recorder reported that the order was issued during a high-level meeting at the CM House attended by provincial ministers, advisers and senior officials including Karachi Mayor Murtaza Wahab and Sindh Building Control Authority Director General (SBCA DG) Muzammel Halepoto.

Shah said a thorough audit of key buildings is no longer optional: “All commercial, private, and government buildings must be equipped with modern fire prevention systems.”

Scope, locations and compliance approach

The initial audit phase covers 2,368 buildings across the province.

The distribution listed in the meeting record was Sukkur 898, Karachi 562, Hyderabad 540, Shaheed Benazirabad (SBA) 171, Larkano 143 and Mirpurkhas 54.

Shah approved a three-phase implementation plan with a phased timeline for compliance.

Shah said: “The initiative aims to institutionalise safety protocols and better protect public life and property.”

Measures, enforcement and building use restrictions

Immediate inspection measures include checks of fire alarm panels, portable extinguishers and emergency signage.

Short-term measures include installing and operationalising smoke detectors, central alarm systems and hydrants.

Long-term measures include complete rectification of electrical wiring and installing automatic fire suppression systems.

Shah directed the chief secretary to ensure SBCA and Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) teams meet building management and set timeframes for immediate, short-term, medium-term and long-term measures, with action planned for non-compliance.

Shah said basements and mezzanines approved for parking will be used only for that purpose and not for shops, cabinets or godowns.

The meeting also approved resuming annual safety inspections of commercial buildings that were discontinued years ago.

Shah said: “Electrical and other inspections, including emergency exit and entry points, etc., will be ensured through inspections.”

Fire Door Inspections – Step-by-Step Checklist

by Building ManagementBuilding ManagementFire DoorsFire DoorsFire SuppressionFire Suppression

Fire doors are a vital part of a building’s fire safety system, acting as strong barriers that slow the spread of flames and smoke. 

Properly maintained fire doors give occupants time to escape and prevent damage to other areas, and are a vital fire suppression tool. 

Regular fire door inspections are essential to make sure these doors will work as intended in an emergency. 

This article explains what a fire door inspection involves, why inspections matter, the legal obligations around them, and who should carry them out. 

It also provides a step-by-step checklist to help you perform thorough fire door inspections.

What is a Fire Door Inspection

an image showing a fire door

A fire door inspection is a detailed check to confirm that a fire door assembly will perform correctly if a fire occurs. 

A qualified inspector examines the door leaf, frame, hardware and all related components to ensure they meet safety standards. 

For example, the inspector checks the door’s certification label and fire rating, examines the door and frame for damage, and tests that hinges, locks and closers function properly. 

Smoke seals and intumescent strips are also inspected to ensure they will expand and seal gaps in heat. 

Basically, a fire door inspection systematically tests every part of the door against a pass/fail protocol to make sure the door can contain fire for its rated duration.

Step-by-Step Fire Door Inspections Checklist

an image showing a fire door inspection

A thorough fire door inspection follows a clear checklist. 

Inspectors typically perform the following checks one by one:

Certification Label & Rating

Confirm the fire door’s certification label is present, legible, and matches its required fire-rating. 

Without a valid label, you cannot prove the door is properly rated.

Door and Frame Condition

Inspect the door leaf and frame for damage or warping. 

Look for holes, cracks, dented edges, heavy corrosion or other defects that could weaken the door’s integrity. 

Any significant damage should be noted.

Gaps and Clearances

Measure the gap around the closed door. 

The clearances at the top, sides and bottom should meet regulatory limits. 

Excessive gaps allow smoke or fire to bypass the door.

Glazing

Check any vision panels or windows in the door. 

Ensure the glass is unbroken, fire-rated and correctly fitted to the door. 

Improper glazing can compromise the door’s fire performance.

Door Hardware

Examine all door hardware.

This includes hinges, lock sets, handles, latches and panic bars. 

Ensure each item is fire-rated, securely fixed, and functions smoothly. 

For example, hinges must be fitted with fire-rated pins and allow the door to swing freely.

Door Closer and Closing Action

Test the door closer by opening the door fully and releasing it from different angles. 

It should close the door fully and latch securely on its own. 

If the closer is weak or jammed, the door will not shut, defeating its purpose.

Seals and Intumescent Strips

Look around the edges of the door for smoke seals and intumescent strips. 

These should be intact and undamaged. 

Intumescent strips expand in heat to seal the gap between door and frame. 

Any missing or torn seals reduce effectiveness.

Coordinator

On pairs of fire doors, check that the inactive leaf closes before the active leaf. 

This sequence is critical for double doors to seal properly in a fire.

Signage

Verify that any required fire door signs (such as ‘Fire Door – Keep Shut’) are fitted and legible. 

Proper signage is part of compliance.

Modifications and Obstructions

Look for unauthorised alterations (extra holes, cuts, oversized glazing) that might void the fire-rating. 

Also check that nothing blocks the door from closing.

Document Findings

Record the condition of each door. 

Note any faults or failures. Many regulations require keeping written records of inspections. 

A clear inspection report helps ensure all issues are tracked and fixed.

Why are Fire Door Inspections Important

Fire doors are only effective if they are maintained in good condition. 

Routine inspections help catch problems early. 

UK fire safety law (the Regulatory Reform Order 2005) makes it a legal duty to keep fire doors working properly. 

Beyond compliance, inspections are a vital safety measure. 

Fully functioning fire doors significantly slow the spread of fire and smoke, protecting escape routes and giving people extra time to evacuate safely. 

Over time, normal wear and tear, or damage from everyday use, can degrade a door’s performance. 

Hinges might loosen, seals might tear, and closers can weaken if not checked. 

Regular checks find these issues before an emergency happens. 

Inspections also provide documented proof of maintenance, which is important for audits or insurance.

How Long Do Fire Door Inspections Take?

an image showing how long fire door inspections take

The time needed depends on the building and the number of doors. 

For a single door, a thorough check often takes on the order of around 15 minutes. 

This includes opening and closing the door, measuring gaps, and logging results. 

For a building with many fire doors, the inspection will take correspondingly longer.

The total duration varies with how many doors are checked. 

Inspecting a small number of doors might only take an hour or two, whereas a large multi-storey building with dozens of doors could require a half-day or more. 

Factors like restricted access, complicated layouts or any required intrusive checks can also extend the time. 

In any case, it’s wise to schedule inspections well in advance so the inspector can work carefully and document everything properly.

What Happens if You Fail a Fire Door Inspection?

Failing an inspection means defects were found that could stop the door from working in a fire. 

The inspector’s report will list these issues and rate each door as pass or fail. 

If a fire door fails, the report usually includes clear recommendations on what remedial work is needed to bring it up to standard. 

Common fixes include repairing or replacing damaged seals, fixing hardware, rehanging the door to align properly, or even installing a new certified door if the old one is beyond repair. 

You should promptly create an action plan to address the failures. 

A failure should trigger repairs within an acceptable timeframe. 

This means arranging maintenance or hiring a specialist to fix issues quickly. 

Until the door is fixed, it should not be considered compliant or relied on for fire safety.

Are Fire Door Inspections a Legal Requirement

an image showing the legal requirements of fire door inspections

Yes.

Fire door inspections are explicitly required by law as part of maintaining fire safety. 

In the UK, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (covering England and Wales) states that fire safety measures, including doors, must be kept in efficient working order. 

In other words, fire doors must be regularly inspected and maintained. Similar laws apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland (for example, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and related regulations). 

Fire safety legislation for all UK regions highlights these responsibilities, and penalties for non-compliance can include unlimited fines or even imprisonment.

British Standards like BS 8214 and BS 9999 give detailed guidance on how often to inspect doors, but following those is a matter of compliance with the overall legal duty. 

For residential apartment blocks, recent regulations (Fire Safety Act 2021 and the 2022 Fire Safety Regulations in England) have clarified that flat entrance doors must be treated as part of the building’s fire safety provisions. 

The bottom line is that if your building falls under fire safety law, you must inspect fire doors on a planned basis. 

Skipping inspections not only endangers people but also violates the law.

Who Can do Fire Door Inspections

Legally, the building’s ‘responsible person’ (often the owner, landlord or employer) is ultimately accountable for fire door safety. 

However, the actual inspections can be carried out by others. 

Basic visual checks can be done by trained in-house staff or facility managers. 

These routine checks help catch obvious damage like broken hardware or blocked doors. 

For full formal inspections, UK guidance says they must be performed by a competent person.

This is someone with specific knowledge and training about fire doors. 

This person may be a facilities manager who has attended a fire door inspection course, or maintenance staff with. 

In high-risk or larger buildings, it is common to hire accredited fire door inspectors from third-party companies. 

These professionals often hold industry certificates (for example from the Door & Hardware Federation or other bodies) and have deep expertise. 

The key point is that anyone performing the inspection must be properly trained and know how to interpret fire door standards. 

You do not have to be a fire brigade officer, but you do need either competent staff or qualified contractors. 

Key Takeaways

Regular fire door inspections are essential for safety and compliance. 

By following a systematic checklist and having qualified people perform the checks, building owners can catch problems before a fire ever occurs. 

Inspections confirm that doors and frames, hardware and seals are all in good working order.

This is so the doors will hold back fire and smoke as designed. 

UK fire safety law makes these inspections mandatory, not optional. 

A well-maintained fire door can save lives and property. 

Using the steps outlined above, anyone responsible for fire safety can ensure their doors remain reliable barriers in an emergency.

Why HEN is pairing firefighting tools with live data

by Featured NewsFire Suppression

HEN expands from nozzle design into incident data

HEN Technologies has developed a firefighting platform that links connected field equipment with cloud-based incident monitoring as it expands beyond its original nozzle design work.

TechCrunch reported that the company, founded in 2020 by Sunny Sethi in Hayward, California, began by designing fire nozzles intended to use water more efficiently and extinguish fires up to three times faster than traditional equipment while using less water.

HEN said its nozzle design followed computational fluid dynamics research funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, which examined how water suppresses fire and how wind affects suppression performance.

The design allows control of droplet size and water velocity, which helps streams stay coherent in windy conditions and improves suppression efficiency.

The company has since added monitors, valves, overhead sprinklers and pressure devices, and it is developing a flow-control device called Stream IQ alongside discharge control systems.

Each device includes custom electronics and sensors that support connected monitoring and data collection during firefighting operations.

The company has filed 20 patent applications related to the technology, with several patents already granted.

Sethi said: “But you can’t have [predictive analytics] unless you have good-quality data.

“You can’t have good-quality data unless you have the right hardware.”

HEN reports commercial growth and wider deployment

TechCrunch said the wider platform tracks water flow, hydrant usage, pressure levels and environmental conditions during incidents, and it also integrates weather data with GPS information from connected equipment.

The system can issue alerts linked to shifting wind conditions or water supply limitations during an incident.

HEN launched its first commercial products in 2023 with 10 fire department customers and about $200,000 in revenue.

Revenue rose to $1.6 million in 2024 and reached $5.2 million the following year.

The company now serves around 1,500 fire departments and projects revenue of $20 million in the current year.

Its equipment is supplied to organisations including the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army bases, naval research facilities, NASA and Abu Dhabi Civil Defense.

HEN distributes through more than 120 distributors and exports to 22 countries.

The company also qualified for inclusion in the U.S. General Services Administration procurement system, which allows federal agencies to buy its equipment through approved contracting channels.

Sethi said: “The hardest part of building this company is that this market is tough because it’s a B2C play when you think of convincing the customers to buy, but the procurement cycle is B2B.

“So you have to really make a product that resonates with people — with the end user — but you still have to go through government purchasing cycles, and we have cracked both of those.”

In January 2026, HEN announced a $20 million Series A funding round alongside $2 million in venture debt from Silicon Valley Bank.

The round was led by O’Neil Strategic Capital with participation from NSFO, Tanas Capital and z21 Ventures.

Its total funding now exceeds $30 million as the company continues building its operational dataset on water behaviour in live fire environments.

FireDos launches compact M1 fire monitor for fixed installations and fire trucks

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionProductsVehicles

Fire monitor design and key specifications

FireDos has announced the M1, a compact remote-controlled fire monitor intended for stationary fire protection installations and use on fire trucks.

The company said the unit has dimensions of 470 mm x 255 mm x 360 mm and is designed for installation in confined spaces.

The M1 is electrically driven and uses 24V DC drives.

FireDos stated that the M1 can be operated remotely using the FireDos control system.

The company described two working ranges with extinguishing agent flows of 150 to 1000 l/min or 400 to 2000 l/min.

Nozzle options and stated applications

FireDos described the M1 as being available with several nozzle options to suit different application environments.

The M1 can be equipped with the MPN multi-purpose nozzle or the AMPN Adjustable Multi-Purpose Nozzle.

FireDos stated that with the MPN nozzle, the extinguishing agent flow is adjusted and tested to customer specifications and can switch steplessly between hollow and spray jets.

The company stated that the AMPN allows the extinguishing agent flow to be adjusted continuously during operation, including to respond to spreading fires.

FireDos described an optional configuration where both nozzles are designed as flat jet nozzles that produce a fan-shaped jet and are intended to extinguish large areas more quickly.

The company listed typical applications including stationary fire protection in waste bunkers, recycling plants, ASRS systems and helicopter landing pads.

FireDos also described use as a front monitor on standard fire trucks, including for vegetation fire response using a wide-angle flat jet nozzle.

The M1 is intended to be configured through nozzle selection and operating range to match the installation and response scenario.

Safer suppression for energy storage systems with Stat-X

by Breaking NewsFire Suppression

Jim Dickinson, Executive Vice President – Global Sales at Fireaway Inc., outlines how prevention, detection and suppression are applied in modern energy storage projects

Energy storage systems (ESS) are moving quickly from pilot projects to core infrastructure across utilities, transport and commercial sites.

That shift brings fire risks that behave differently from conventional electrical installations.

Thermal runaway can develop inside battery modules before visible smoke or flame, while enclosure design, ventilation limits and restricted access complicate intervention.

As grid-scale and behind-the-meter storage expands across the Middle East, these factors are shaping design decisions, insurer expectations and regulatory scrutiny.

Fireaway Inc. addresses these challenges through Stat-X® condensed aerosol fire suppression, supported by UltraSenseTM early detection technologies designed for enclosed and modular environments.

The approach focuses on identifying early fault indicators and deploying suppression in spaces where traditional gas or water-based systems can be difficult to engineer or maintain.

Ahead of Intersec Dubai 2026, Jim Dickinson, executive vice president – global sales at Fireaway Inc., outlines how prevention, detection and suppression are applied in modern energy storage projects.

IFSJ Editor Iain Hoey sat down with Jim Dickinson to discuss safer energy storage design, technology selection and regional deployment considerations.

Why is thermal runaway regarded as a distinct fire hazard in battery installations?

Thermal runaway presents a distinct hazard because once a battery cell enters that state, the reaction is self-sustaining and difficult to interrupt with suppression alone.

In practice, most fires in ESS units begin with electrical faults – short circuits, arc faults or other electrical failures – not the cells themselves.

Approximately 90 % of ESS fires are linked to electrical components rather than intrinsic battery cell combustion.

Our strategy focuses on preventing escalation.

By detecting the earliest signs of trouble, such as changes in gases or temperature before flames develop, we give operators and suppression systems the best chance to intervene before a full thermal runaway event occurs.

Suppression after runaway is extremely challenging, so early action is critical.

What preventive measures are most effective in stopping a fault from becoming a wider fire event?

Early detection is essential which is why we  utilises UltraSense industrial sensors with Stat-X  our suppression systems.

UltraSense detects subtle indicators such as off-gassing and thermal changes before visible smoke or fire fire  appears.

This earlier signal gives system controllers time to initiate alarms, shutdowns or suppression before conditions escalate.

Early detection matters because it extends the window for intervention ahead of thermal runaway.

Battery modules can exhibit off-gassing and abnormal electrical behaviour well before ignition, so capturing those signs helps to reduce the likelihood that a minor fault becomes a large-scale fire.

How must detection strategies change for energy storage systems where early signs are gas release or electrical shifts rather than flames?

Detection must be geared toward subtle precursors, not just flames.

Traditional fire detection relies on smoke or heat.

In ESS environments, the sequence generally begins with internal faults that generate heat and off-gassed compounds before smoke or flame is present.

UltraSense delivers continuous monitoring of gas composition and temperature changes at the cell or module level, offering an early warning long before a flame exists.

This approach improves reaction time for suppression and operational shutdown, especially in compact battery arrays where changes can occur rapidly.

How does Stat-X condensed aerosol technology work and why is it suited to modular ESS layouts?

Condensed aerosol fire suppression is a potassium -based method in which ultra-fine agent particles and propellant gases are released to interrupt combustion reactions and suppress fire.

Stat-X generators contain a stable solid compound in hermetically sealed stainless-steel canisters.

When activated – either electrically through control panel signals or thermally when a set temperature is reached – they discharge an aerosol that suppresses fire across a protected space without the need for piped infrastructure.

Key advantages for ESS include:

  • Low-pressure deployment: Unlike high-pressure gas systems, Stat-X works in spaces with un-closable openings and remains in the atmosphere longer to help prevent reflash.
  • Compact, modular units: The generators mount on walls or ceilings and require no piping, reducing installation complexity – important in containerized or cabinet-style ESS installations.
  • Extended agent presence: The aerosol can stay suspended for up to 20 minutes, offering ongoing suppression and reducing the risk of fire re-ignition.
  • Environmentally acceptable: Stat-X agents are listed under U.S.
  • EPA SNAP for normally occupied spaces with zero potential for ozone depletion or global warming impact.

Stat-X can be configured with electrical actuation tied to control panels and detectors, or with thermal initiators that trigger at defined temperatures.

Both approaches are widely used in ESS protection.

How is Stat-X typically integrated into modular ESS units and what constraints shape design choices?

Integration typically involves placing Stat-X aerosol generators inside or adjacent to ESS modules, connected to detection systems that can trigger discharge.

The compact size of Stat-X allows it to fit into confined cabinets, racks or containerized systems without requiring extensive piping or large gas cylinders.

In contrast, water-based systems like water mist require extensive piping, water supply planning and larger structural space.

That makes them less practical in tight ESS housings.

Using aerosol systems simplifies engineering requirements and reduces installation time, costs and potential points of failure.

Physical constraints such as space availability, access for maintenance and layout of battery racks often influence the choice of system configuration and placement.

Which standards and test methods are most relevant to ESS fire suppression and how is Fireaway engaging with them?

The cornerstone standard for energy storage system installations is NFPA 855, the US National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard for the installation of stationary ESS.

Fireaway designs systems to align with NFPA 855 guidance and local authority requirements.

In addition, NFPA 2010 covers fixed aerosol fire extinguishing systems, addressing their design and application.

Aerosol standards such as UL 9540A test thermal runaway propagation and are increasingly referenced in risk evaluation and system specification.

Third-party testing conducted under NFPA and UL 9540A protocols has shown that Stat-X aerosol can limit thermal runaway propagation and extinguish fires when properly designed and installed.

Local approvals also matter.

With Intersec Dubai 2026 approaching, what ESS themes will Fireaway emphasise and how do regional projects influence your focus?

At Intersec Dubai 2026, we’re emphasising prevention, early detection and suppression as a complete framework for ESS fire safety.

We highlight UltraSense for early hazard detection and Stat-X for suppression, supporting a layered approach to risk.

Interest in these technologies has risen steadily since we introduced UltraSense globally.

Combining real-time hazard detection with effective suppression makes sense for owners and designers facing diverse ESS configurations.

Regionally, the Middle East’s growth in utility-scale and distributed storage installations means solutions that are adaptable, easy to install and compatible with varied regulatory landscapes are in demand.

We work with global OEMs and distribution partners to provide support where ESS projects are being manufactured and deployed.

Our global network of more than 500 partners enables ongoing service wherever systems are installed.

This was originally published in the January 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Operational testing of sprinklers: UL Solutions explains NFPA 25 sample testing rules

by Featured NewsFire EngineeringFire Suppression

Kerry M. Bell, principal engineer, Fire Sprinkler and Pump Equipment at UL Solutions, sets out testing procedures and clarifies temperature rating considerations for varied installation environments

For several decades, UL Solutions has examined and tested sprinklers sampled from field installations in accordance with the recommendations and requirements of applicable National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards.

To be effective in controlling or suppressing a fire, a sprinkler system is required to be designed and installed to provide protection against the magnitude of the fire risk anticipated to occur.

For example, the amount of water required to be discharged from a sprinkler protecting a warehouse with high-piled storage is multiple times greater than the amount of water required to be discharged from a sprinkler protecting an office facility with a smaller fire load.

While it is critical for sprinkler systems to be properly designed and installed, it is equally important for these systems to be periodically inspected, tested and maintained to help ensure that the system equipment will perform as intended if a fire occurs.

The primary focus of this article is on the examination and testing of the sprinklers sampled from a sprinkler system as referenced in the 2023 edition of NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems.

Inspection, testing and maintenance requirements for sprinklers

Periodic inspection of field-installed sprinklers is an important element of a comprehensive maintenance program for fire sprinkler systems.

As specified in NFPA 25, sprinklers showing signs of leakage, field painting, physical damage, loss of fluid in the glass bulb heat responsive element and corrosion or loading considered detrimental to sprinkler performance must be replaced.

These conditions can lead to the degradation of sprinkler performance during a fire condition.

In addition to the periodic inspection of field-installed sprinklers, the 2023 edition of NFPA 25 also requires replacement or representative sample testing of sprinklers based on the length of time in service.

Sample testing or replacement frequency depends on the sprinkler type and installation environment.

While many sprinklers do not require representative testing or replacement until they have been in service for 50 years, sprinklers having fast response elements must be tested or replaced at a shorter time interval.

Early suppression fast response (ESFR) and control mode specific application (CMSA) sprinklers that have fast response elements must be tested or replaced after 20 years in service and 10-year intervals thereafter.

Other types of sprinklers that have fast response elements must be tested or replaced after 25 years in service and 10-year intervals thereafter.

Due to the relatively complex construction of a dry-type sprinkler, as well as some of the challenging installation environments where many of these sprinklers may be installed, dry-type sprinklers must be tested or replaced after 20 years of service and 10-year intervals thereafter regardless of the sprinkler response type.

It is also worth highlighting the fact that NFPA 25 indicates that sprinklers installed in extraordinarily harsh environmental conditions, such as foundries, fertiliser facilities or areas exposed to outside weather conditions, must be replaced or representative samples tested on a five-year basis.

The frequency for sample testing or replacement of some of these sprinklers has been revised over the years in consideration of the overall performance during representative sample testing.

Sprinkler samples selected for testing are to be representative of the sprinklers installed in the system.

As noted in NFPA 25, no less than four samples, or 1% of the number of sprinklers per sample area, whichever is greater, are to be tested.

The sprinkler samples removed from the system for testing must be immediately replaced with new sprinklers.

Each sample received by UL Solutions is visually examined before testing to ascertain the sprinkler manufacturer, model or sprinkler identification number, style, type of heat responsive element, temperature rating and year of manufacturer.

The condition of the sprinkler is also noted based on visual evidence of corrosion, loading, leakage, physical damage, loss of fluid in a glass bulb heat responsive element or field painting.

The testing of the sprinklers involves an assessment of the ability of the sprinkler to operate and allow the discharge of water.

Sample testing and report

To assess the operating characteristics of sprinklers sampled from field installation environments, the samples are subjected to the sensitivity-oven heat test as described in ANSI/CAN/UL/ULC 199, the Standard for Automatic Sprinklers for Fire Protection Service.

During this test, the inlet of the sample is pressurised to approximately 5 psi (0.35 bar) and quickly plunged into an oven that circulates heated air at a constant temperature and velocity.

The actual temperature and air velocity used for the test are selected based on the temperature rating of the sprinkler.

Each sprinkler sample is observed for proper operating characteristics including the release of operating components and time of operation.

If the heat response element functions but the water seal does not release, the sample is exposed to a water supply to determine if the sprinkler’s water seal releases at 7 psi (0.5 bar).

The test report for the samples is provided to the submitter and describes the condition of each sprinkler and results of the operation test as either normal or abnormal.

The as-received condition of each sprinkler sample described in the report is based on a visual examination.

The information included in the report is intended to be considered by other parties in determining the need to replace other sprinklers in the system.

UL Solutions

UL Solutions is a global leader in safety science with deep expertise in the Built Environment industry.

We provide comprehensive testing and certification services for fire protection products, including sprinklers, supporting manufacturers throughout the entire product lifecycle, from design and development to compliance and market entry.

Our rigorous evaluation processes help demonstrate safety, reliability, and performance, enabling manufacturers to meet regulatory requirements and gain access to global markets with confidence.

This was originally published in the January 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.