Competency matters Rapid evolution
In recent years, and particularly over the past five to ten, the UK steel construction industry for medium and high rise buildings has evolved rapidly. It is now commonplace to see long span construction with fewer columns, coupled with down stand cellular beam construction to incorporate services through floor beams, rather than below, as was the norm some years ago. This construction style brings several
advantages: more ‘lettable’ floor area, future proofed spaces, lines of uninterrupted view, faster construction, reduced floor zone depths allowing lower building height and reduced cost or more available floors being some of the most obvious. This evolution also coincided with a huge upturn in the use of intumescent coatings, in particular coatings applied away from the construction site, often in the steel fabricator’s paint shop. This has brought further advantages,
such as single source of supply; removal of disruptive processes from the construction site; steelwork built ready fire protected (in case of construction fire); and improved quality due to better application conditions. It’s a fact of life that the development and enhancement in the design and construction of modern buildings has brought with it vastly more complexity of design.
Cellular beams alone bring an increased
need for care to ensure that complex forces are considered, particularly with modern beams that now have multiple arrangements of web penetrations to keep the floor plate use as flexible as possible. The great news for the occupiers of these buildings is that the
intumescent industry has invested heavily in R&D and engineering to better understand such issues, and has produced systems and solutions capable of providing the life safety required. However, those delivering the designs – from
architects and design engineers through to the finite coating thickness designer – must do so diligently and with proven competence.
Questionable solutions
We have experienced many examples of other suppliers giving questionable advice, and solutions that have not considered the full complexity or enhancements that sometimes become necessary, particularly with cellular beams and novel floor designs. Indeed, we have also witnessed specifications
that pointedly exclude such enhancement costs, which could lead to their exclusion and therefore become a life safety issue. Another example of bad fire protection design practice is that of simply considering the steel design output – for example, assuming a fixed, low value of ambient strength utilisation, which would lower the level of protection required. This is a high risk approach that should be questioned vigorously. To simply assume a value to gain a competitive advantage or solve a challenge is not engineering: it’s potentially risking life and property safety, which is unacceptable. As a manufacturer we are often tasked with
trying to make solutions work where diligent consideration has not been given. We are often then faced with a fire strategy report that quotes, for example, ‘generic’ beam temperatures that have been developed from perhaps the finite element modelling.
FOCUS
www.frmjournal.com MARCH 2018
17
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
