Dr Jim Glockling considers the benefits of the different means of assuring product function, referring to the FPA’s ABI project


EGULAR READERS will be aware that, on behalf of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) membership, we have


been researching various areas of interest in relation to the Grenfell tragedy, the conclusions of which we aim to feed in to the enquiries. One research stream has involved a deep dive into the BS 8414 standard used for the assurance of structural performance under fire conditions and, in particular, reviewing its relevance to the ‘real world’ challenges it purports to address. Needless to say, a paper review has raised


a number of areas where we feel significant deficiencies might exist, and these are now being explored experimentally in the FPA fire test laboratory. Full results and conclusions will be issued in due course via ABI, but it should come as no surprise to anyone that we will almost certainly be providing a technical justification to BSI to support a request to reconvene the BS 8414 committee. However, it might come as a surprise to


many that the Grenfell incident alone has not prompted a review, especially given the multitude of confusions on product selection and identification that have dogged the enquiry. I suppose that risks opening an even bigger can of worms, and life is quite uncomfortable enough for many without throwing another issue into the ring... but isn’t that exactly what we should be doing at this moment in time – questioning everything that might have contributed to the event and leaving no stone unturned? The FPA’s and RISCAuthority’s view has


always been that in the built environment material selection should start with a preference for non combustibility. The benefits last the lifetime of the building, and sensitivities to poor installation, modification, abuse, and wear and tear over time – in comparison to methods deploying combustible materials – are all reduced enormously. I was asked recently what the best approach to testing was to ensure safety and performance


18 APRIL 2018 www.frmjournal.com


RISCAuthority insight R


between product and built up system testing. Whilst I gave an answer, it was only upon further consideration over the next few days that I realised my answer would require knowledge of who was commissioning the testing – it’s a question of trust. Let me explain by making reference to my


personal experience of working in a number of fire laboratories over the years, and simply splitting those commissioning work into two groups: those who want to understand a problem they have, and how different approaches and products might solve them (fit for purpose testing); and those who want to demonstrate the benefits of their products to support (at the end of the day) sales. As an example, there are standards for


testing gaseous extinguishing systems – those selling such systems seek to satisfy the set fire challenges with the minimum amount of agent possible, as this improves profit margins. We know from experience that small


changes in the enclosure, the fire details and other design parameters can change the result, but in this case there are protections within the standards to ensure safety factors are added, which will hopefully absorb such deviations when applied to the real world. Now take an end user such as the Royal


Navy. Their starting point is: ‘Is the standard enough like our application to be relevant?’ If not, the fires are changed to more realistic fuels, holes might be opened in the enclosure to simulate weapons attack, and system activation times increased to account for naval fire confirmation policies. Only after this is done is the gaseous system tested, and design quantities established as being ‘fit for purpose’. The difference is that one approach seeks the ‘least that will do the job’ (as defined by the standard), whilst the other seeks ‘what is required to do the job’. So what about BS 8414 as a built up test specification? The ‘system’ comprises many components, from different manufacturers: cladding material (cladding and window


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