The data drive: How UL Solutions supports business continuity through certification

by Featured NewsFire SuppressionSafety

Simon Ince, Program Manager, UL Solutions, explores fire safety considerations in data centres and potential strategies

The global data centre industry is constantly pushing the boundaries of innovation in power distribution, cooling, energy storage and server technology.

While these advances bring exciting opportunities, they also introduce new risks.

Mitigating many of these fire risks can be supported by choosing certified fire protection systems that have been properly specified, installed and maintained.

A global industry

While the data centre industry is expanding worldwide, data centres must still comply with regional fire protection standards.

Building codes and regulations differ from country to country, but they generally include prescriptive and performance-based fire safety requirements designed to provide a reasonable level of life safety and some property protection.

However, these regulations often lack measures specifically geared toward maintaining business continuity.

These model codes typically consider the size and complexity of a building, occupancy levels, fire load and potential fire growth rates, and require both passive and active fire protection to achieve an acceptable level of risk to life and structural property.

Regional differences in codes and approvals mean that the methods for achieving regulatory fire protection vary.

Therefore, wherever a data centre business operates, facilities must comply with all applicable local fire safety regulations.

Organisations such as UL Solutions support compliance with regional building codes and installation standards by providing third-party testing, inspection and certification designed to complement region-specific safety requirements.

Business continuity

Data centres operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

For this sector, effective fire protection strategies must also be designed to consider business continuity.

Even a relatively small fire can result in significant operational disruption and financial loss.

Industry data indicates that fire disruption accounts for approximately 14% of significant outages.

While the total number of fire-related incidents may be decreasing, global reliance on digital infrastructure continues to grow.

As a result, outages are becoming more impactful and costly.

The average cost of downtime can soar as high as $9,000 per minute, with large enterprises facing average costs of $540,000 per hour.

Although major data centre fires are infrequent, their consequences can be severe.

In September 2025, a lithium-ion battery fire in South Korea forced the closure of a government-run data centre, disrupting 647 public systems.

Critical services were temporarily paralyzed, with the incident highlighting the vulnerability of critical digital infrastructure to fire-related events.

At the same time, the pace of digital transformation and artificial intelligence (AI) development is accelerating.

Global data centre construction is projected to grow by approximately 11.10% annually through 2034.

This rapid expansion is driving innovation in design, construction methods and energy systems.

As a testing, inspection and certification provider, UL Solutions works with major data centre providers to support innovation by evaluating safety performance.

 Regulations often struggle to keep pace with emerging technologies.

When new risks arise, science-based testing and certification protocols help demonstrate conformity with existing regulations and advance safety where standards have yet to be established.

One example is UL 2755, the Outline of Investigation for Prefabricated Modular Data Center Systems and Related Modular Units, which addresses the increasing demand for prefabricated modular data centres (MDCs).

Modular construction allows faster deployment than conventional builds, with modules often manufactured in one country and installed in another.

Supporting code compliance during factory construction is therefore essential.

Start with a fire strategy

Early engagement with a competent local fire engineer is essential during the planning phase of a data centre project.

Fire engineers routinely develop life safety strategies based on a site-specific hazard mitigation analysis (HMA), but they can also incorporate resilience and business continuity measures into such strategies.

Maintaining fire engineering involvement throughout construction helps ensure that the “on paper” strategy is properly implemented.

For example, many data centres rely on battery energy storage systems (BESS) to provide reliable and continuous power.

These systems can provide immediate backup power until standby generators start.

Fire engineers rely on design guidance such as NFPA 855, which addresses the installation of stationary energy storage systems and requires certification to UL 9540, the Standard for Energy Storage Systems and Equipment.

UL 9540A, the Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems, is used to evaluate fire propagation characteristics of specific BESS.

Understanding how a battery system behaves under fire conditions is essential to managing that risk.

Design with function in mind

In addition to fire engineers, specialist designers for active fire protection, such as detection and suppression, along with passive fire protection for fire containment, should be involved early in the planning process.

For example, within the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work, Technical Design is traditionally completed at Stage 4.

However, introducing detailed fire protection considerations during Stage 2 (Concept Design) can help identify and resolve potential fire protection issues early in construction.

Data centres contain extensive building services, such as power cables and air conditioning duct work, that penetrate fire-resisting compartments.

How these services pass through fire-separating elements while still maintaining fire separation is crucial.

Specialist designers understand the importance of third-party certification and selecting systems with verified performance.

Tools such as Product iQ® allow designers to confirm the tested scope and application of products.

Matching certification data to real-world installation conditions helps prevent costly remedial work later.

Protect, detect and suppress

Active and passive fire protection systems must perform reliably when required.

Selection should be based on verified performance testing, as failure during a fire event could result in significant and costly downtime.

Structural fire resistance and compartmentation are fundamental to any onsite fire protection strategy.

Standards such as UL 263, the Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials(also recognized as ASTM E119), support the evaluation of structural stability and fire separation.

Separating plant rooms from server halls, for example, limits fire spread and protects critical assets.

Early fire detection is equally important.

Data centres typically have high airflow due to cooling requirements, making traditional detection less effective.

Aspirating smoke detection systems, which continuously sample air near server racks, provide very early warning.

UL 268, the Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, specifies performance requirements for these detection systems.

Fire suppression systems vary depending on the area and risk profile within the data centre.

Typically, inert gas systems and water mist systems are used in areas containing sensitive electrical equipment.

Regardless of the type of system chosen, the components and system should have been tested and certified to be suitable for the specific on-site risk scenario they are intended to mitigate.

Competence matters

Specifying tested and certified products is only part of the solution.

Improper installation can undermine even the best-designed systems.

Installer competence should be established before work commences to avoid costly and disruptive remediation.

Schemes such as the UL Solutions Qualified Fire Stopping Contractor Program can support due diligence in selecting competent specialist contractors.

In a sector where uptime is paramount, fire protection must be approached holistically.

From building design and fire strategy through product selection and installation, each stage must be synchronised to protect life and to support business continuity.

Therefore, the competence of all involved must be specified and vetted.

As digital infrastructure continues to expand, competent specialists equipped with third-party verified fire safety solutions can help drive safer, more reliable data centre operations.

Ongoing management, testing and maintenance

Getting the design, specification and installation of fire protection systems right, helps reduce the risk of downtime from day one.

However, without ongoing inspection, testing and maintenance of fire safety systems, even the best systems may not function as intended over time.

Many data centre providers implement externally audited business continuity management systems, such as ISO 22301 or rely on data centre–specific guidelines such as UL 3223, the Outline of Investigation for Data Center Certification.

Documented, audited processes for fire risk mitigation can provide a proactive approach to maintaining the fire protection system in a data centre.

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

Barking project prompts sprinkler warning from Business Sprinkler Alliance

by Featured NewsIncidentsIndustry Comment

Sprinkler strategy and building use

A multi-storey industrial building in Barking has been cited by the Business Sprinkler Alliance (BSA) as an example of how a compliant fire strategy can still restrict building use.

Tom Roche, Secretary of the Business Sprinkler Alliance, said the development was designed as a multi-storey industrial and warehousing scheme and described as a pioneer project, yet most of it remained empty two years after completion.

The building was presented as flexible workspace with tall ceilings, roller shutters and vehicle access to upper levels.

Only a small fraction of the available space has been let. The issue was linked to the fire strategy.

The sprinkler system was designed for industrial use rather than storage use.

Flammable materials can therefore only be stored to a height of around 1.2 metres.

In units capable of accommodating storage at much greater height, that restriction limited the range of occupiers the space could support.

Barking and Dagenham Council described the sprinkler system as having been “value engineered” to “balance cost, compliance and anticipated use”.

The system complied with fire safety regulations, went beyond the guidance in fitting the sprinklers and passed the required checks before sign-off.

Business Sprinkler Alliance sets out wider concern

Roche said the case showed how fire engineering strategies can shape what can be stored, how space is used and whether a building remains commercially viable.

He wrote that fire engineering strategies are often agreed early and then rarely revisited.

He also said further value engineering can alter the long-term use of a building even when a strategy is later updated.

In this case, the property is reported to need an additional £2.2 million to allow it to be used in the way intended.

Roche also referred to other examples including schools with atria that cannot hold events and large warehouses with clear heights that cannot be protected with ceiling-only automatic sprinklers.

He said: “A building that cannot be let because its fire strategy restricts its use is not a success.

“A development that requires millions of pounds of remedial work shortly after completion is not a success.

“A scheme that looks right, feels right, but functions incorrectly has failed at a fundamental level.”

He added: “If a building looks like a warehouse, is marketed as a warehouse and is priced as a warehouse, then it should be able to operate as one.”

The Business Sprinkler Alliance said it would continue to argue for fire safety approaches that place protection, resilience and continuity alongside life safety.

Integrated wildfire strategy launched to address growing risk in Europe

by Featured NewsWildland Fire

EU meeting proposes continent-wide wildfire strategy

Over 150 wildfire specialists met in Brussels to present a draft strategy to address increasing wildfire risks in Europe.

According to UCP Knowledge Network, the Integrated Wildfire Risk Management (IWRM) Strategy was presented at a two-day event organised by the Firelogue coordination project in cooperation with the EU Research Executive Agency.

The event was supported by four EU Green Deal projects – FirEUrisk, FIRE-RES, SILVANUS, and TREEADS – which have spent the past four years identifying weaknesses in European wildfire risk management.

The strategy proposes a move from reactive national responses to a long-term, coordinated approach across the continent.

Organisers stated that climate change has altered the frequency and distribution of wildfires in Europe, making a shared, systemic approach necessary.

Focus on civil protection and landscape resilience

The IWRM Strategy is intended to support the objectives of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, with a particular emphasis on integrating emergency response, land management, public engagement, and digital infrastructure.

UCP Knowledge Network reported that wildfires are increasingly affecting parts of central and northern Europe, beyond the traditionally affected southern regions.

The proposal recommends that national systems shift from treating wildfires as seasonal events to seeing them as continuous governance challenges.

It also calls for stronger investment in local-level civil protection to enable authorities to apply preventative measures in vulnerable areas.

A central theme of the Brussels discussions was the need for wildfire governance to cross administrative and sectoral boundaries.

Turning research into operational tools

The IWRM Strategy includes tools developed through pilot projects and research programmes, including drones, risk modelling platforms, and apps to support field teams.

At the event, Firelogue demonstrated a virtual reality module for firefighter training that simulates wildfire response scenarios.

According to the organisers, these tools are designed to be immediately useful to civil protection agencies.

However, it was also stated that technical innovation must be accompanied by adequate training, funding, and inclusion in decision-making structures.

Speakers pointed to Fire Forums as a format for cross-sector engagement between scientists, responders, and decision-makers, particularly in areas with limited resources.

Stakeholder alignment and implementation planning

The closing roundtable featured representatives from DG ECHO, DG Environment, the Joint Research Centre, and the World Bank.

According to UCP Knowledge Network, the discussion focused on aligning the IWRM Strategy with existing EU programmes and addressing legal or institutional changes needed for implementation.

Participants stressed that the success of the strategy depends on coordination across sectors and levels of governance.

Suggestions included education initiatives, improved coordination between countries, and formal mechanisms for knowledge sharing between regions.

The panel agreed that while the strategy provides a structure, effective implementation will depend on political and institutional follow-through.

Strategy aims to make Europe wildfire resilient

UCP Knowledge Network reported that the strategy aims to address wildfires as an accelerating outcome of climate change.

Speakers at the event stressed that civil protection systems must be central to wildfire adaptation planning across Europe.

The strategy proposal sets out a direction for EU-level and national alignment but will require legislative and policy action to become formalised.

Organisers concluded that moving forward requires joint work between Commission services, Member States, and local agencies.

The strategy is not binding but is intended as a reference point for future EU wildfire governance.

Integrated wildfire strategy launched to address growing risk in Europe: Summary

Over 150 wildfire experts met in Brussels in June 2025 to launch a strategy for Europe-wide wildfire risk management.

The event was hosted by the Firelogue coordination project and the EU Research Executive Agency.

Support came from four European Green Deal projects: FirEUrisk, FIRE-RES, SILVANUS, and TREEADS.

The proposed Integrated Wildfire Risk Management (IWRM) Strategy seeks to coordinate science, policy, and operations.

The proposal recommends shifting from national, seasonal responses to cross-border, year-round systems.

The strategy supports EU Civil Protection Mechanism goals and local implementation capabilities.

Technologies showcased include virtual-reality training and mobile tools for fire services.

Speakers called for investment in training and decision-making integration.

Fire Forums were highlighted as a method for cross-sector dialogue and capacity-building.

A closing panel included officials from the European Commission and World Bank.

The discussion addressed legal, institutional, and funding needs for implementation.

The strategy has not yet been adopted but serves as a draft framework.

Further collaboration between EU institutions and Member States is required.

Organisers said the strategy responds to fire risks made worse by climate change.

The proposal frames wildfires as a long-term, systemic challenge for European civil protection.

Fire Engineer reportedly ‘completely ignorant’ of Grenfell Cladding Plans

by Passive

Firefighter, Tony Pearson stated at the inquiry into the fire, that at the time of reviewing the fire strategy for the building’s refurbishment, he ‘had no clue’ that cladding was part of the plans.

The second phase began with a focus on decisions ‘taken in the months and years before the fire’, its immediate aftermath and the government’s role. ‘Key revelations’ included that ‘almost none’ of the clients, consultants or contractors during the refurbishment were ‘accepting much blame’, and ‘ignored pleas from the inquiry not to engage in a “merry-go-round of buck-passing”’.

The first week heard refurbishers ‘knew cladding would fail’; witnesses threatened to ‘withhold evidence’; and a consultant was not sent a key report. However hearings were delayed due to witnesses asking for assurances that ‘anything they say will not be used in criminal prosecutions against them’. This was granted, and the inquiry resumed.

The inquiry also acknowledged that Sir Martin had written to Attorney General Suella Braverman to ‘request an extension’ in late April, and she extended the ruling. After the agreement had been made, testimony from architects Studio E admitted it ‘lacked experience in cladding tower blocks’ and was selected ‘despite never having carried out similar work’, without any ‘competitive procurement process, interview or design competition’.

Later, emails between senior fire engineers and consultants at Exova Warrington Fire saw admissions that refurbishment plans were making ‘a crap condition worse’, and ‘no sprinklers [were] wanted’. Studio E’s lead designer Neil Crawford then alleged that Celotex ‘calculatedly sought to deceive’ and ‘deliberately misled’ over its product’s safety ‘as if selling horsemeat as beef’.

Most recently, contractors appeared more concerned about ‘cost and delay’ than fire safety, and on ‘appearance and cost’, while Exova consultant Cate Cooney had carried out a fire strategy report in 2012 on Grenfell in its original ‘state’ but ‘without visiting the site itself’, and included a ‘number of assumptions’.

After it was confirmed that the inquiry would begin hearing oral evidence again ‘on a limited attendance basis’, having been suspended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first week saw a senior fire engineer state they ‘did not raise the need for any proposed cladding system to have a separate fire safety assessment’, and another shared that he was sent the design report for the cladding, but did not view it as ‘he was not specifically asked to’.

Earlier this week, the two Exova consultants were said to have given ‘no thought’ to evacuating disabled residents because the law ‘didn’t require them to’. Yesterday, Dr Tony Pearson’s testimony included revelations that Studio E and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) clashed over fire safety, specifically over firestopping ‘to prevent flames spreading between floors for at least two hours’. He also said that he had ‘hoped’ building regulators ‘would not notice’ that evacuation arrangements ‘might not be compliant’.

Inside Housing has now reported that on reviewing the refurbishment’s fire strategy he ‘had no clue that cladding was part of the plans’, and that as a senior consultant at Exova ‘at the time of reviewing the document’, he was ‘completely ignorant of the fact that the works included overcladding’.

In a summary of the refurbishment works, ‘there was no reference to cladding’, and the report has ‘come under scrutiny’ for a passage that read: ‘It is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report.’

There was also no consideration in a future fire strategy of the ‘possible safety impact’ of the cladding, and when asked whether he believed that the strategy should have been updated ‘in this respect’, Dr Pearson said ‘generally speaking, yes’. The last report undertaken by Exova ‘did not update’ the passage relating to external fire spread, and was reviewed by a ‘much more junior’ member of staff.

Dr Pearson was aware that cladding systems could pose fire risks as ‘an experienced fire engineer and an active on-call firefighter’, but ‘did not know’ that aluminium composite material panels ‘were being used as rainscreen facades’. Emails from October 2013 showed Dr Pearson was sent a copy of Exova’s second strategy, then sent it on to colleague and fellow witness Terry Ashton.

He stated in that communication that ‘I have added something (although if you think what I have added is too long and draws too much attention to the issue, feel free to shorten it)’. He had added a paragraph stating that the plans for ‘sharing means of escape between residential and non-residential accommodation is not endorsed by current statutory guidance’, but this did not breach building regulations as they were a ‘continuation of the existing principles’ for the tower.

In turn, fire risks from offices and a boxing gym in the tower were ‘no greater than those in a typical flat’, with Mr Ashton replying that he had sent the report out without reading this change, but ‘would not have agreed to the amendment anyway’ as it was ‘debateable’, despite Exova’s policy of peer reviewing all advice before sending it to clients.

Mr Ashton added that he hoped ‘Paul Hanson doesn’t pick up on it’, referring to the RBKC building control officer, as the department had a ‘reputation of being particularly hard to convince to accept anything non-standard’. Dr Pearson told the inquiry that Exova was ‘not trying to pull the wool on building control’s eyes’, and that his role was to provide ‘ad hoc assistance’ to Mr Ashton.

In 2015, an email from Dr Pearson to Mr Ashton stated that ‘if significant flames are ejected from the windows, this would lead to failure of the cladding system, with the external surface falling away and exposing the cavity, eliminating the potential for unseen fire spread’. Dr Pearson said this referred to a specific question about whether cavity barriers or stronger fire breaks were needed between compartments, and that he ‘still did not know which’ were being proposed.

He said this was ‘based on the assumption that everything else is code compliant’, and Inside Housing noted it ‘appears’ Mr Ashton had responded to Studio E’s Neil Crawford, who had asked the question ‘again, seemingly in breach’ of Exova’s peer review policies. Dr Pearson was asked if he had considered looking further into the cladding, and responded that this was ‘one of the big, great what-ifs’, and that he ‘took it on trust’ that Mr Ashton would know which materials would be used.