34 SAFETY, SECURITY & FIRE PROTECTION Fitness for purpose By Mike Wood, Head of Fire Protection (Glass & Glazing Design), Pilkington UK
NOBODY WANTS TO RISK JAIL FOR FAILING TO MEET FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. BUT THAT’S A POSSIBILITY FOLLOWING THE FIRE SAFETY ORDER 2005. THE FSO HAS BROUGHT ABOUT A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN FIRE LAW. THE IMPLICATIONS ARE STARTING TO HIT HOME AS SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS ARE PUSHED THROUGH THE COURTS. PENALTIES POTENTIALLY INCLUDE HEFTY FINES, JAIL SENTENCES AND SUSPENSION ORDERS.
Before During After
T
he person in control of the premises is deemed to be the one directly in line, responsible for the fire precautions and for the safety of building users. The underlying methodology is based on risk assessment. But the responsibility and duty of care does not necessarily stop with the owner. It is evident that the responsible person cannot be expected to know the detailed ins and outs of fire protection systems which require specialist knowledge.
In practice, therefore, responsibility cascades along the design, specification, supply and installation chain. As case law develops, so will the reach of the FSO. Manufacturers clearly have a responsibility for the products they supply. Fitness and quality for purpose are paramount objectives. It’s entirely appropriate to evaluate products on a similar risk basis as the premises. The pedigree of the fire protection products should rightly be evaluated, the performance claims scrutinised, and the reliability of function and performance in fire analysed. Reproducibility and consistency of performance are valid questions, ones which manufacturers should be only too pleased to answer.
Common principles apply to all fire-resistant systems, and some golden rules apply. • Fire-resistant products should only be installed as part of an approved and classified fire-resistant system of matched components.
Test evidence is essential, provided by a test report which must be applicable to the system as installed and the application. • A fire-resistant system must be installed as tested. There should be no temptation to take short cuts (such as mixing and matching of components) or to use a system based on non-relevant test evidence. Claims for equivalence between different products should be closely examined. • Tested systems should be preferred over assessments, especially if test evidence associated with the assessment is somewhat tenuous (assessments are opinions, vulnerable to recent test evidence which may overturn the assessment). If assessments are used then they should be scrutinised to ensure that they have been carried out by properly accredited authorities (not self accredited), based on valid and traceable test evidence applicable to the situation. • Consideration of risks in real fires can be carried out by asking how the product reacts to fire, backed up by the range and scope of the full set of test evidence accumulated over years by the product. Any product limits need to be evaluated. It should be remembered that a single test only relates to the recorded performance on the day of the test and does not give any evidence regarding consistency, reliability and therefore dependability of the product. As firefighters testify, products that can flame or smoke,
potentially giving off toxic fumes, on the protected side are clearly a potentially enhanced risk in real fires, especially when used along escape routes. • Fire resistance performance is defined either as integrity (i.e. holding back flames and hot gases) or insulation (i.e. the limitation of heat transfer by all mechanisms plus integrity). The categories should not be blurred. For example, the European class EW (classifying to defined restricted radiation criteria) is not recognised by UK regulations because the EW criteria are of questionable safety benefit, ambiguous and open to abuse. Radiation is subject to area, size and orientation. A generic EW claim therefore has no meaning unless the area limits are defined. In no way should EW be taken to be a substitute insulation performance. • Insulation on the other hand provides protection against all heat transfer, defined by precise temperature criteria.
Insulation
performance therefore protects against the risk of serious burns, for enhanced life safety (especially for vulnerable groups) as well as benefits in limiting fire spread by secondary ignition.
For more information on fire protection glazing visit
www.pilkington.co.uk or contact 01744 69 2000
Pilkington UK Click here to request literature
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76