Labour bid to amend fire safety bill after “shameful” failure to remove cladding

by Passive

Labour will try to amend the government’s fire safety bill this week, after it emerged that over 80% of private sector accommodation with Grenfell-style flammable cladding has not had the dangerous material removed.

The party will try to amend the legislation due before parliament on Monday and force the government to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s phase one report, published in October 2019.

The move comes after the latest government figures released in August showed that Grenfell-style cladding had not been removed from over 80% of private sector buildings and nearly 50% of social sector buildings.

The report on the first stage of the inquiry into the Grenfell fire said the programme to withdraw the aluminium composite material – ‘ACM’ – cladding from buildings “should be pursued as vigorously as possible”.

Commenting on the government’s inaction since the fire killed 72 people in 2017, Labour frontbencher Sarah Jones said: “Over three years after Grenfell, it is shameful how little progress has been made.

“The government has continuously broken their promises, while tens of thousands of people across the country are stuck living in unsafe flats. The victims and survivors of Grenfell are still waiting for justice. This is completely unacceptable.”

While the government has claimed its fire safety bill would take it a “step further” to delivering on the inquiry’s recommendations, it does not include direct provisions for any of the measures called for in the report.

The shadow policing and fire minister added: “Every measure necessary should be put in place to prevent a fire like Grenfell from ever happening again. We urge the government to honour their promises and back the amendment and get the work done.”

The fire safety bill is intended to give greater clarity over the responsibility for fire safety in buildings containing more than one home. It passed its second reading in April and the remaining stages are scheduled to take place tomorrow.

Labour’s amendment would create a legal mandate for owners to share information on the design and materials of buildings with the local fire service and to undertake regular inspections of flat entrance doors and lifts.

The proposed changes to the government’s bill would also see owners of buildings required to make sure that all residents are informed of the premises’ evacuation and fire safety procedures.

Commenting on the removal of Grenfell-style cladding in the phase one report, chair of the inquiry Sir Martin Moore-Bick wrote that is is “essential that it be done as quickly as possible”.

He added: “Concern has been voiced publicly, most recently by the House of Commons communities and local government select committee, about the apparently slow rate of progress in carrying out the work.”

Schools twice as likely as other buildings to be hit by a blaze, according to Zurich Municipal

by Passive

Schools in England are nearly twice as likely to suffer a blaze as other types of commercial building, according to new research by Zurich Municipal, the insurer of schools in the UK.

In the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date, Zurich analysed the fire risks posed by 26,866 primary and secondary schools in England. It found the average school posed a fire risk 1.7 times greater than non-residential buildings (with a fire risk score of 0.58 and 0.33 respectively according to Zurich’s model). When compared to 2.9 million non-household properties [1], schools were also three times more likely to fall into the “high” fire risk category (58% vs 20%), as defined by the study.

Data scientists analysed 33,000 fires from the last six years to identify factors that increase the likelihood of a blaze from which they produced a fire risk score.  These factors include listed status, presence of cooking equipment and size of the building itself.

Despite being far riskier than average when it comes to fires, many schools also lack the equipment needed to prevent small fires becoming major disasters. Of more than 1,000 school inspections carried out by Zurich, 66% were rated as having ‘poor’ fixed fire protection systems, such as sprinklers, which are proven to significantly reduce the damage caused by fire. Just 14% were rated ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. A further quarter (24%) were judged ‘poor’ for fire detection measures, such as smoke detectors and fire alarms [2].

Larger schools more at risk

Firefighters have been called to nearly 2,000 school blazes in the last three years [3]. Malfunctioning appliances or equipment, faulty electrics, arson and kitchen blazes are among the leading causes of school fires.  Larger fires in schools cost on average £2.8 million to repair and in some cases over £20 million.

Bigger and older schools, including those with a canteen, and secondary schools – which have more complex and dangerous equipment – were identified as particularly at risk. A correlation between poor OFSTED ratings and greater risk of fire was also identified in the analysis [4].

The findings have led Zurich to launch a parliamentary petition to urge MPs to change the law on sprinklers in schools. Whilst sprinklers are compulsory in all new or major refurbished school buildings in Scotland and Wales this is not the case in England. In fact, they are fitted in fewer than one in six new schools [5].

Tilden Watson, Zurich Municipal’s Head of Education, said:“An alarming number of school buildings pose a high fire risk – yet many are poorly protected against a potential blaze.  Unless Ministers bring England into line with other parts of the UK, where sprinklers are mandatory, large fires will continue to blight schools.  This is harming children’s education and putting lives at risk.

“Burnt out schools and classrooms cause major disruption to children’s education, with repairs leading to months or even years of upheaval. They also result in the loss of spaces which local communities rely on out of school hours.  As well as protecting pupils, sprinklers drastically reduce the extent of damage when there is a blaze, often confining the fire to a single room.  This gets children back into schools and classrooms quicker as well as saving taxpayers’ money.

“Countless young people have already had their schooling upended by the coronavirus pandemic. We cannot allow school fires to further disrupt young people’s education, and jeopardise their futures.”

Nick Coombe, Protection Vice Chair and Building Safety Programme Lead for theNational Fire Chiefs Council, said: “The case for sprinklers is compelling.  Of almost 1,000 fires over five years in buildings where sprinklers were fitted, our research found they controlled or extinguished blazes in 99% of cases.  We want to see a greater inclusion of Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS), including sprinklers, across the built environment.  Sprinklers can dramatically reduce fire damage, making the reopening of a school much easier. This not only minimises the disruption to a pupil’s education, but also the impact on their family, the community and the wider education establishment.”

According to Zurich’s analysis, seven million (7,036,327) primary and secondary school children are taught in the 58% of buildings that are a high fire risk [6].

In June, Boris Johnson pledged £1bn to fund a decade long school rebuilding and repair programme and a further £560m in early August [7]. Based on large fires alone, Zurich estimates that the repair for school fires could hit £320 million over 10 years – a significant portion of the government’s slated investment [8]. Zurich wants the government to ring-fence some of its promised investment to improve the resilience of schools at high risk of fire.  Insurers work closely with schools to help them manage their fire risks but the installation of sprinklers minimise the dangers from the outset.

Watson added: “It costs far more to repair fire-ravaged schools than it does to install sprinklers. Even so, cash strapped schools cannot be expected to pick up the bill. The government’s COVID-19 investment is a critical opportunity to ensure schools are more resilient to fire. Unless minsters change the law on sprinklers, much of this funding will be wasted on repairing the fire damage that sprinklers could have easily prevented. The government should also gather and disclose more data on school fires to help fully understand the risks they pose and their wider financial and social impacts.”

Footnotes 

  1. 2,920,914 non-residential buildings
  2. Inspections carried out between Jan 2017 and Dec 2019
  3. Home Office: Fire Statistics – 1,916 fires on education premises in England between 2016-2019, of which 34 buildings were completely destroyed
  4. As OFSTED rating improved, average risk score decreased
  5. The Guardian: April, 2019 – Labour party figures show of the 673 schools built under the government’s school building and free school programmes, sprinklers were fitted in 105.
  6. Of the schools analysed, Zurich found 2,446,340 children attend high risk schools – 29.5% of the primary and secondary student population in the school sample
  7. co.uk, 29 June: PM announces transformative school rebuilding programme
  8. Based on current rate of 11.3 schools destroyed a year, and a conservative cost of £2.8m per larger fire (11.3 x 2.8 x 10 = £317m).

Arc Flash: Quantifying the Arc rating of a protective garment

by Passive

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has developed a series of International Standards for clothing to protect against the thermal hazards of an electric arc. The clothing is intended to be used for electro technical work where there may be an electric arc hazard. These standards do not address electric shock hazards, and are not suitable for electric shock protection unless used in combination with other standards. They also do not address the effects of noise, UV emissions, air pressure, shrapnel, hot oil, the consequences of physical and mental shock or toxic influences of an electric arc.

The following test procedures are available for electric arc testing: procedures according to standards:

1) IEC 61482-1 “Open Arc Test Method”
The arc rating is most commonly quantified by the Arc Thermal Performance Value (ATPV) determined by the open arc test method IEC 61482-1. This test method is currently being revised to IEC 61482-1-1/CDV. The ATPV represents the maximum incident thermal energy in units of energy per surface area (e.g. kJ/m2 or cal/cm²) that a fabric can support before the wearer will suffer 2nd degree burns.

The break-open threshold energy (or EBT) is another fabric characteristic. It represents the highest incident energy exposure value on a fabric where the garments do not exhibit break-open. The formation of holes in the fabric caused by break-open would allow heat or flames to pass through. Workers are assumed safe if the arc rating of their clothing (or ATPV value) exceeds the electric arc incident energy as calculated in the worst case scenario of a risk assessment.

Materials or assemblies are given an ATPV value, expressed in kilojoules per square metre (kJ/m2), which can be converted into the familiar cal/cm2.

2) IEC 61482-1-2 “Box Test”

The box test is another way to measure the protective performance of clothing against the thermal effects of an electric arc, and is defined in the IEC 61482-1-2 test method. In this test, the fabric is exposed to an electric arc confined in a specific box with a specific electrode arrangement.

A fabric passes the test:
• If the heat transferred behind the fabric does not cause second degree burn (i.e. is below the Stoll curve)
• If the after flame time is below 5 seconds
• If there is no melting to the inner side of the fabric
• If a hole caused by the arc is not larger than 5 mm in every direction (in the inner most layer)

Test conditions for Class 1 try to simulate typical exposure conditions for a short circuit current of 4 kA protected by devices limiting the duration of the arc to 0.5 seconds in confined space, and of 7 kA respectively for Class 2.

It is the opinion of UK technical committee PEL/78 that the “box test” does not provide the user with a realistic and reliable test.  A premise of this test is that the fault currents will not exceed 4000 A or 7000 A and the worker will not be closer than the specified distance from the arc (in reality this cannot be guaranteed).

The energy on the worker’s body is directly proportional to the length of the arc, the current and the duration of the arc.  For example, if a worker positioned at 60cm from the arc and is exposed to 4 cal/cm2 at 30cm from the arc the energy will be approximately16 cal/cm2.  Experience in the field has shown that hazards can range in strength starting from 3 or 4 cal/cm2 to levels higher than 40 cal/cm2.

UK technical committee PEL/78 believes that open arc test will provide the best way to determine whether a particular material will provide the best protection for the worker for any given job.

IEC 61482-2/CDV – Performance Requirements For Garments

Flame resistant garments are CE marked to the above standard.  This standard contains performance specifications for protective clothing tested according to either “open arc” or “arc in a box”.

The standard requires the following:

  • A single layer garment having a minimum of ATPV = 4 cal/cm2 (167.5 kJ/m²) when test to the open arc test method or Class 1 when tested to the box test method;
  • Garments must be sewn with Inherently Flame Resistant threads;
  • When garments have a higher rating of arc protection on the front than the back,  the torso, sleeves and legs must be in the same arc rated material the back can have a lower arc rating;
  • Garments must have no exposed external metal (any internal metal or melting parts are to be covered inside to avoid contact with the skin);
  • The garment label will show the lowest ATPV or Class if different panels on the garment are used;
  • The double triangle symbol will be on the label with the ATPV and/or Class underneath it;
  • Upper (ie. torso) garments only will be visually tested to the IEC Open Arc or Box test and the fastenings are to still perform after the arc test;
  • Additional User Information will be provided to include that no undergarments which melt under arc exposure are to be worn and that other PPE should be worn for full body protection (e.g. helmets and gloves).

www.arcflashprotection.co.uk/

Euralarm: to hinder or not to hinder, that is the CPR question

by Passive

Standards for products and services are at the heart of success of the fire safety industry. Euralarm’ members need a fast and flexible standards-setting system because it is not only the best way to serve the interests of customers, the industry and society but also is a basic requirement for a safe and secure society. Their standardisation system helps them to continue to deliver the highest levels of safety and security to citizens.

However, for the competitiveness of the electronic fire safety industry, the impact of the CPR on standardisation has according to their members unfortunately not met expectations. This industry as well as many others depend on standardised product performance requirements and standardised behaviour, which is at odds with the interpretation of the CPR following the European Court of Justice judgement on the James Elliot case.

For example, alarm buttons to activate a fire alarm system are across Europe – and the world – always red. Under the CPR, this is not seen as essential criteria and could change now with national solutions, which would lead to building occupants being confused. In one country the button is red and in another could be any other colour. The company’s expectation in the CPR is to ensure the European wide acceptance of test laboratory results, which in turn supports the movement of construction products across Europe. But now it has taken a different turn since the CJEU judgement. Further, trying to cover a very wide assortment of products from aggregate to electronic systems is proving to have a negative effect on the standardisation of fire detection and alarm products.

Background

The free movement of goods is one of the success stories of the European project. It has helped to build the internal market from which European citizens and businesses are benefiting and which is at the heart of EU policies. It was that same free movement of goods that was behind the introduction of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) in 2011. With this regulation the EU wanted to establish a common “playing field” for products for the construction industry. To assess or declare the conformity of the products use is made of the so-called harmonised standards.

Harmonised standards

Harmonised standards are European standards that are developed by a recognised European Standards Organisation, such as CEN CENELEC or ETSI. These standards define the common technical language to be used by manufacturers to express the technical performance of their products, by regulators to express their requirements and by designers, contractors, and other construction stakeholders to efficiently exchange information. The standards provide a solid technical basis for testing the performance of products, allowing manufacturers to prepare a declaration of performance (DoP) for their products as defined in the CPR and to affix the CE mark. The CE marking signifies that a product complies with relevant safety, health, or environmental regulations across the European Economic Area (EEA).

Working with European harmonised standards offers many benefits. First, the technical relevance is guaranteed since the standards are the result of open and transparent discussions by interested stakeholders in the European Standardisation Organisations (ESO). Following these discussions, the standard is adopted by one of the ESOs (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI) which makes the European standard relevant to the market as well. And since the European standard is requested by the EU and cited in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU) the harmonised standards are also relevant for the EU politics. When using a harmonised standard, it is assumed that the product complies with the basic requirements of the directive. This ‘presumption of conformity’ fulfils the circle that is needed for the free circulation of a product on the EU Single Market.

One size fits all?

Overlooking the construction industry, there is a very wide range of building products that fall under the scope of the CPR, ranging from low tech products like asphalt for road construction to high tech products like fire detection devices for buildings. Most of these products fall into categories that allow manufacturers to self-declare compliance with standards. In case they cannot declare it themselves, there are several third-party testing institutes that can help them. However, fire protection systems and equipment (and to an extent also security products) must be third party assessed and certificated before being “placed on the market”.

So far, it looks as if working with harmonised standards for assessing or declaring product conformity worked well. That changed with the so-called James Elliot case. James Elliot Constructions started a case at the European Court of Justice against Irish Asphalt. The building company claimed that the aggregate that was provided by the asphalt manufacturer was not compliant with the specifications of the relevant harmonised standard for aggregates. The European Court of Justice regarded privately produced technical harmonised standards, as a provision of EU law. In its ruling the Court not only addressed this specific context, but also raised the need to address some specific aspects of the functioning of the European standardisation system.

Aligning the pace of market and standardisation

The James Elliot case triggered the European Commission to set up additional assessment processes by which harmonised standards, once elaborated, can be reviewed in retrospect. This development has brought the review and publication of standards in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU) to a stillstand. In 2019, not one single standard was cited in the OJEU and there is no hope of a change.

The additional assessment processes for harmonised standards may not be of great importance for low tech products that remain the same for decades, but it is for high tech products, such as fire safety equipment. The rapid technological developments of these, and other high-tech products require up-to-date versions of harmonised standards. What is more, product innovation utilising new technology is an important capability for the fire safety and security industry to improve performance and usability. Most of the fire protection systems and equipment also employ electronics and software that needs to be updated on a regular basis. These aspects demand that related standards and regulations are sufficiently flexible and responsive to encompass such changes. The current CPR practice clearly does not accommodate these needs.

Evaluation

Quite recent, the European Commission evaluated the CPR with the purpose to assess to what extent the CPR has met its objectives and helped reduce obstacles to the internal market for construction products. Among the main shortcomings identified by this evaluation are the insufficient performance and output quality of the standardisation system under the CPR, and the low uptake of simplification provisions. These factors have reportedly resulted in a lack of legal clarity according to the EC.

Euralarm shares with the EC the conclusion that a revision and a simplification of the CPR is needed. However, it is not with the production of technical standards that leads to the insufficient performance and output quality, but the requirements set up by the Commission for the harmonisation of standards under the CPR. From a technical standpoint, all European standards impacting the fire safety sector have been updated but only two revised standards in EN 54 series have been accepted by the European Commission and hence cited.

Notwithstanding the disproportionate standards development cost for the industry, the changes in the CPR have created serious obstacles to export fire safety products outside of Europe and more generally the competitiveness of the European Industry. While their international competitors have been able to update their standards to the latest technological development, the European fire safety industry is unable to compete because the publication of new standards is blocked.

Instead of blocking the publication of new or revised standards the focus should be on the availability of up-to-date versions of harmonised standards with shorter times between reviewing, updating and publishing standards. This will give the fire safety industry as well as many other industries that depend on (advanced) technical products more flexibility when developing standards to ensure safety of the European citizens and preserve its competitiveness in the international market.

www.euralarm.org/

Hammersmith & Fulham Borough Council abandons fire safety construction contract

by Passive

Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council has reportedly ‘abandoned’ a £75m fire safety construction contract after ‘mistakes’ in its tender documents meant it ‘would not have been able to fairly evaluate bids’.

The in depth nature of the contract would have seen a winning contractor carry out a ‘wide range of general ad-hoc construction work including some complex high-value voids’ over five years, with the possibility of extending this for another two.

The specific fire safety remediation work meanwhile would have included fitting fire doors, sprinklers, and fire alarm and detection systems, alongside ‘general repair and maintenance’, and the original contract stated it would begin at the start of August. However, the council revealed last week that it had ‘abandoned the process’, after it became ‘apparent that the pricing tables included for the tender stage were not sufficiently clear or structured’.

According to the council, this meant that bidders for the work ‘could not understand how to price their submissions’, and that they had ‘different interpretations of the methodology involved’, meaning that ‘proposals submitted could not fairly be evaluated’. In turn, the council ‘could not assess’ if tenders had met its ‘high quality standards’.

Its notice added in turn that ‘as a result […] and in accordance with the tender documents as issued, the council has made a decision to exercise their discretion to not award the contract and to abandon the tender process’. The news outlet noted that the council’s website has a fire safety page on which leader Stephen Cowan refers to the Grenfell Tower fire, and says that his council’s programme – H&F Fire Safety Plus – would go ‘above and beyond what is required’ by regulations.

This would include a ‘massive programme of works’ to replace fire doors and appliances, as well as ‘address other residents’ fire safety concerns’. When asked how the error was made, how much it cost and what the effect would be – as well as whether a new procurement process would begin – a spokesperson said that the tender would be reissued ‘very shortly’.

He added: ‘We are committed to ensuring we offer the best services for residents. Some errors were identified in the initial procurement process. This will have no impact on our Fire Safety Plus programme, nor any detriment to our residents’ safety, which is always our number one priority.’

www.lbhf.gov.uk/

New figures reveal 20% rise in smoking-related fires during pandemic 

by Passive

London Fire Brigade (LFB) has published figures showing a startling rise in smoking-related fires in the capital since the start of the UK lockdown. The 20% increase in fires comes despite the recently reported fall in smokers, with 1 million people in the UK kicking the habit during the pandemic.

Smoking remains one of the leading causes of fires, with hundreds of fires around the country caused by discarded cigarettes each year. In November 2019, The Cube in Bolton was devastated by a fire now concluded to have been started by a discarded cigarette on a combustible balcony. This is, sadly, a staggeringly common occurrence with a litany of balcony fires caused by smoking materials the length and breadth of the country.

LFB report in their latest figures that smoking materials caused over 500 fires during the lockdown period. Most notable was a blaze in a block of flats in Kennington in June started by a discarded cigarette from a higher floor igniting a first-floor balcony. Whilst the flat was destroyed, all residents fortunately were able to evacuate although 18 adults and children required treatment by ambulance crews.

Richard Izzard, Managing Director of non-combustible aluminium decking manufacturers AliDeck, said “We are seeing balcony fires all around the UK with worrying regularity, most of which have been started either by the use of barbecues or carelessly discarded cigarettes. With more people staying indoors or working from home during the Covid lockdown, it’s no surprise to see a rise in the figures but simple steps to remove and replace combustible materials would solve the issue at a stroke.”

Short of an apparently very unlikely behavioural change in smokers, the only way to reduce the risk of fires on balconies being caused by discarded cigarettes is for all combustible materials to be removed and replaced with non-combustible options, such as aluminium decking which is A-Rated for fire-safety. Removing combustible materials such as timber or composite balcony decking will immediately result in safer buildings and help to protect lives and property.

www.london-fire.gov.uk/

Hikvision launches people-counting solution

by Passive

The new Density Control Solution just launched by Hikvision is designed to help the staff at supermarkets, retailers, Post Offices, banks and other buildings and facilities manage the number of people on their premises at any given time.

With social distancing an ongoing requirement in public places at present, Hikvision’s system uses highly accurate people-counting technology, a clear, dynamic display and real-time alerts to ensure that pre-defined capacity thresholds are never exceeded, even in those locations with multiple entrances and exits.

Optional central management software allows end users to obtain in-depth business intelligence reports for trend analysis. Importantly, the Hikvision Density Control Solution can be easily and rapidly deployed.

Gary Harmer, sales director for Hikvision UK and Ireland, told Security Matters: “The Density Control Solution is designed to be simple to use and highly accurate, with options to suit all potential application scenarios. There’s a single door option for smaller establishments and also a version incorporating multiple people-counting cameras for multiple doors. The Density Control Solution can also be managed across multiple sites using our HikCentral management software.”

Harmer continued: “In all of these scenarios, a clear and very easily understood dynamic data display monitor is sited at each entrance, providing those awaiting entry with real-time updates on the number of people inside. An alert is created when the pre-configured maximum is reached, while an audio alarm can be triggered if anyone attempts to enter the building before the numbers go below that threshold.”

The solution allows organisations to reduce the number of staff required to be physically present at doors as the remaining capacity is clearly displayed. Additionally, the highly accurate nature of the cameras’ people-counting functions – which make effective use of 3D binocular stereo vision and Deep Learning algorithms – means that potentially complex counts in multi-door sites are no longer an issue.

Alongside the Density Control Solution, Hikvision also offers a Mask Detection Solution which is designed to ensure that anyone entering a given premises is wearing a face mask if local restrictions dictate that this is required.

The Mask Detection Solution can be delivered in a variety of formats depending on user needs: on board a specialist camera, on a Hikvision DeepinMind NVR for those users with existing camera systems, integrated within Hikvision’s Temperature Screening Thermal Solution or as part of a MinMoe door access unit with built-in face detection technology, which can deny entry if a mask is not worn or an out of range skin surface temperature is detected.

www.hikvision.com

PELI agrees to donate to fire and humanitarian services

by Passive

PELI Products, global designer and manufacturer of high-performance protective cases and advanced lighting systems, is uniquely positioned to provide support to those most in need.

After its large donation of PELI 9600 Lighting systems to the Italian Red Cross at the beginning of the crisis, PELI decided to help its closer community in Barcelona; the city where the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) headquarters is located.

PELI’s donation to the ‘Fundació Patrimoni Natural de Matadepera´ includes fire & rescue teams, forest preservation and law enforcement entities

The foundation was created for the preservation and to improve safety against natural hazards, fires and emergencies, with the ultimate goal of reducing the loss of assets and natural heritage in our territory: Matadepera and the Natural Park of Sant Llorenç del Munt i l’Obac. Approximately 45 torches PELI 1910 has been given to them.

Other entities belonging to the same Foundation such as a unit of the local Police has also received a selection of 400 models including PELI 7110, 7610 and 7620 from PELI. Furthermore, several Fire departments from Barcelona and Catalunya have received 1380 units of PELI 3325Z0 and almost 50 units of PELI 9430; the Forest Agents and Fire departments also received approximately 1020 headlamps of model PELI 2785Z1. Lastly, the Red Cross of Barcelona has received 300 headlamps.

Piero Marigo, Managing Director of PELI says: “We are delighted to contribute with our lighting systems to these professional entities, especially after the complexity of the times we have gone through during the last months. We are totally sure they will use them for humanitarian search and rescue and to preserve our environment too.”

www.peli.com

ASFP releases new advice on the fire protection of structural steel

by Passive

The Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) has released a suite of new Advisory Notes which offer guidance on the fire protection of structural steel. The four new Advisory notes address specific concerns identified by industry.

ASFP Advisory Note 18: ASFP Position on Installing Partitioning to the Underside of Structural Steel Sections Coated with a Reactive Fire Protection System highlights concerns related to fixing partitioning directly to columns or beams treated with intumescent paint. It notes that fixing anything directly to either the column/beam will impede the intumescent paint from expanding and may allow heat to transfer to the steel, resulting in localised loss of strength and potential failure in the event of a fire.

Since partitioning is often installed along the line of a structural steel frame, the ASFP has joined with the FIS (Finishes and Interior Sector – the dry lining industry trade association), to recommend that, regardless of the existing sound or acoustic protection, the beam or column should be boxed out with an independently tested framed or an unframed system that will provide the required level of fire protection to the beam/ column.

Advisory Note 19: ASFP Position on the Use of Critical Steel Temperatures above 650°C recommends that if a limiting temperature of above 650°C is specified, then a second opinion should be sought from an appropriately trained structural engineer. This reinforces the best practice guidance contained within Advisory Note 12: Best Practice Guide for Specifying reactive coatings for structural steel fire protection, published jointly by the ASFP and the British Coatings Federation.

ASFP Advisory Note 20: ASFP Position on Portal Frame Buildings provides advice on providing fire protection to portal frame rafters, and should be used in conjunction with the SCI document P313: Single Storey Steel Framed Buildings in Fire Boundary Conditions.

It recommends that where fire protection is required to portal frame rafters, certified 4-sided beam thicknesses should be applied to all 4 sides of the rafter, using the appropriate critical temperature.  In cases where a portal frame rafter cannot be coated on the top flange if the roofing materials are in place, a structural engineer and/or fire engineer should be consulted, as further action may be required. Care should also be taken to use the appropriate 4-sided section factor in all cases.

ASFP Advisory Note 21: ASFP Position on Coatback with Respect to Unprotected Secondary Beams Fixed to Protected Primary Beams advises against the omission of coatback to protect secondary beams when the primary beam is fire protected.

It describes references to such omissions contained within Steel construction – Fire Protection, published by the British Constructional Steelwork Association in 2013, as unconservative. The recommendations in the advisory note has more detail than that contained within ASFP Yellow Book (5th edition) and ASFP TGD 8: Code of practice for junctions between different fire protection systems whichwill be amended accordingly.

The Yellow Book will state: ‘If there is no evidence to support the omission of coatback then a figure of 500mm as stated in ASFP TGD 8 Code of practice for junctions between different fire protection systems when applied to load bearing structural steel elements should be assumed as a conservative solution.’

The guidance highlights that the primary beam must be a solid web beam and that omitting coatback does not apply when the protected beams are cell beams. While noting that individual manufacturers have undertaken tests to show that reduced coatback may be sufficient, the guidance states that, the specific end use situation and the proprietary evidence must be considered and that coatback should only be omitted in situations where a detailed engineering study has been completed.

All ASFP guidance documents are available for free download from the Publications area of the ASFP website: www.asfp.org.uk.

Ultra Fog’s water mist systems

by Passive

Ultra Fog water mist fire extinguishing systems provide robust, effective, quality engineered solutions for applications which require optimal fire suppression while minimising the volume of water consumed and deployed. High pressure pumps force water through the stainless steel Ultra Fog water mist nozzles, discharging the water in the form of millions of tiny droplets – typically 30 – 200 µm diameter.

An activated system will create a blanket of water mist droplets which maximise heat absorption from the fire, and subsequently displacing oxygen upon evaporation and expansion of the water mist as it converts to steam. Water mist systems are differentiated from sprinkler systems by mist’s unique ability to present a much greater water surface area (enabling rapid heat absorption), combined with the mist’s ability to remain suspended in the air for a much longer duration – thereby creating more exposure time for the heat absorption to take effect. This enables water mist systems to cool and suppress fire using considerably less water than sprinkler systems.

www.ultrafog.com/