10 VIEWS
Testing times
Instead of manufacturers collaborating to offer the industry a joined-up approach where a fully-tested wall system can be offered to the market, (and which could be insured easily as a tested product), we have firms going in the opposite direction and not taking liability for fire performance of their products. Without tested systems being offered to designers, the onus is pushed on to the design team to sort out who is responsible for fire performance of walls and floors. If no performance test is available then the design team should demand it, often at considerable cost and time delay. Architects’ PI insurance doesn’t generally cover us for accepting liability for the fire performance of untested systems. Timber itself is not the problem – any failure of wood-based systems is usually down to piecemeal procurement, design competence and fragmented testing evidence – the Structural Timber Association has recently undertaken a whole raft of testing on this. To prevent timber frame buildings from prematurely failing to meet the statutory guidance (that is designed to protect life), designers must understand the complete design and construction process. Ultimately, we still have limited joined-up testing information available for engineers and architects to use. The protection of a building or asset is something that insurers are now becoming more concerned about; this raises a wider conversation. The problem with taking the ‘test everything’ approach is that every project is different. Manufacturers reasonably ask:
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
what version of our system should we test – the one designed to meet GLA targets, the one designed to meet current Building Regulations, the one designed to meet the 2021/22 Part L Regulations, or the one designed to meet Part L 2025 (The Future Homes Standard)? If every manufacturer was to test every product against every possible use of it, we would need many more testing centres, and a large number of SME suppliers would go out of business.
An existing solution However, the fire performance of loadbearing timber frame walls and floors from inside the building needs to be tested, plus the acoustic performance of compartment walls and compartment floors, and this can be done now – without considering all the variants for different regulations. There was industry guidance on this, which has been withdrawn following the Grenfell fire. Even where manufacturers have done this testing however, they won’t take design liability for fire performance, leaving a vacuum in design responsibility that architects are expected to fill. In addition, problems with performance of any kind, be it fire, acoustic, thermal, air tightness or water tightness, tend to happen at the interfaces between materials, so we would have to test every interface between every material. The ‘math’ demonstrates pretty quickly that with two types of timber frame, three types of insulant, and two external wall materials, joining two types of party walls gives you 24 tests. If you add in the varying requirements for changes to Building Regulations it comes to 72.
The answer is for manufacturers to
collaborate to develop a set of standard approaches which can be tested Rory Bergin, HTA Design
Unless testing houses can come up with a quicker and cheaper way of testing, this is not going to be possible.
I think that the answer to the problem is for the manufacturers of timber frame and other framing systems to collaborate and work together to develop a set of standard approaches which can be tested. Then fire consultants can use those as a basis to demonstrate that individual buildings are equivalent to, or demonstrably better than, a specific set of tests. Otherwise we are going to go in circles for years, and we are not going to be able to use timber frame to build more sustainable buildings – right at the point where we need it most.
Rory Bergin is partner, Sustainable Futures at HTA Design
ADF DECEMBER 2021
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
