Archive for the ‘Passive Fire Protection’ Category

I was speaking with a colleague today who had a question posed to him by a client in Queensland who had been advised by their service provider that because the fire doors on the ground floor of the building showed a water line from the flooding that the doors had to be replaced.

In speaking to him I think that there is a lot of miss information out there propagated by individuals and companies who either do not really understand fire doors or are just trying to make a quick buck from the recent natural disaster. In either case I would like to put a few suggestions out there for you to consider if you come across this situation before you decide to replace your fire doors.

Water is no good for the core of a fire door (or moisture in general). This is why a door is constructed in a way that ensures a barrier between the outside (moisture/water etc) and the inside (the core of the door).

It helps to know what is actually inside your fire doors so if you don’t know then have a look at these two posts.

Generally following installation a fire door is painted. The bottom of the door, the sides of the door, the top of the door and the faces of the door. Why? to assist in creating a barrier to keep the water from penetrating into the core of the door.

The client my colegue was speaking to had a number of doors possibly affected or at least showing a water line on the face of the door from the flood water. If this is the case, my first suggestion would be to use a little common sense (even though sense is so rear it can hardly be called common).

  1. Tap the door well above the water line and then tap the door below the water line. If water has penetrated into the door the core will be softened and the sound very different to a part of the door above the water line. If you tap the door above and below the water line and the sound is the same things are looking up. If there is a distinct difference in the sound chances are water has penetrated the door and it should be replaced.
  2. Using a set of verniers measure the thickness of the door well above the water line and then below the water line. If water has penetrated then chances are the door will start to swell (or get thicker). If the measurements are the same above and below the water line then things are still looking up. If the measurements are different (3mm or more as a rule of thumb – not scientific but generally the thickness of a door can vary during production so a brand new door be slightly thicker or thinner across the length of the door) then you should probably replace the door to be safe. If the measurements are closely the same then things are still looking up.
  3. The final test would be to look at the door with the highest water line (this being the door which has been most exposed to water penetration). Remove the door, mark the centre of the width of the door and cut it in half. Yes this will destroy the door but if you have a lot of doors it will be a very good reference point to assess the other doors on the same site. With the door cut in half you will be able to see if water has penetrated into the core of the door. If this is the case then you would be advised to replace all the doors as they are possibly similarly affected. If the door does not show signs of water penetration then you could reasonably assess that other doors exposed to similar conditions will be affected in a similar way.
In the end it is a decision for the owner of the fire doors to make, but just because a service company has told you that you have to replace your fire doors because they have a water mark on them from flood water does not mean they are right. As a minimum get a second opinion from another company or from your building certifier or consultant.
Fire doors are designed, installed and maintained as part of the overall fire protection systems within a building. They are complementary to the other protection measures which together are there for life safety. If there is any doubt then consideration of life safety is paramount.
If you do decide to keep your fire doors then as a minimum you would want to clean them down and have the fire doors painted again, including the underside, sides and tops of the fire doors.

Every fire resistant doorset installed in Australia must be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The current Australian Standard referred to in the BCA for Fire Resistant Doors is AS1905.1-2005 “Components for the protection of openings in fire resistant walls.

 While this article concentrates on the requirements of the fire door compliance tag, a fire door is a component of a complete doorset which includes the door leaf, or leaves, the frame (inclusive of the required frame compliance tag), hardware, seals, other attachments to the doorset (e.g. vision panels and air grilles) and the wall in which the doorset is installed including the fixing of the attachments to the door/s, the door/s to the frame and the frame to the wall.


This Blog Post is accompanied by a summary table of fire door compliance tag requirements in Australia. The table details all the relevant Australian Standards and the relevant clauses relating to fire door compliance tags. To view the table click here (sorry could not format it to fit on this Blog Post).


The fixing of a compliance tag to a fire resistant doorset has been a requirement from the initial fire door code (AS CA57, Part 1-1972) to the current time.

The door tag is an integral component of a fire-resistant doorset identifying the door and setting it apart from other doors such as solid core doors, hollow core doors and the like.

Considering this, it is clear why the compliance tag is so critical; it identifies the door as a fire-resistant door (being a component of a complete fire resistant doorset), and further gives a reference to the performance (i.e. the fire –resistant level) of the specific door.

The physical tag requirements have remained unchanged over the revisions of the relevant standards (aside from the imperial to metric changes which first appeared in the 1976 revision) but more often we are seeing tags provided by suppliers which are printed, not etched, embossed or stamped which can lead to issues in identification when tags are painted over.

Recessed or projected numbers and letters can be painted over and still be identifiable even if a solvent is used to clean the tag. This tiny little point is often missed by tag providers and this should be addressed by all who have the responsibility of manufacturing, supplying or installing compliance tags and is a clear requirement of the Standard and for good reason.

Building owners and managers should be aware of the importance of compliance tags to ensure trades such as painters are directed to treat compliance tags as they would locks and closers  and protect them prior to painting.

The fixing of the compliance tag to the door leaf is another issue. Adhesives while appropriate short term can degrade over time. This can lead to compliance tags becoming detached from the door.

Sticking a tag to a door leaf is a major contributing factor in compliance tags falling off doors and aside from the 1984 revision tags have had to be either mechanically or firmly affixed.

This small point is the bane of contention of building owners and managers who consistently see the wording “missing compliance tag, recommend new door”.

Industry providers are doing themselves an injustice in not doing these simple things to protect the end user from the premature replacement of their fire resistant doors.

The details on a compliance tag provide critical information which is used by inspectors (or should be used) to assess the fire resistant doorset during its serviceable life as it identifies the conditions by which the fire resistant doorset  was designed and should be assessed against.

These details have changed over the years so inspectors should be aware of the marking requirements for the relevant performance standard applicable to the doorset being inspected (see table above “Required Tag Details”).

If you have seen a tag in the field with the standard “AS1851” prominently displayed, this is not a compliance tag. This detail provides no assistance to the inspector of the fire-resistant doorset as it fails to provide any of the details required by AS1905.1.

Tag location is stated in general as approximate and where the placement of the tag on the hinge side of the door leaf could impact the performance of the doorset (i.e. perimeter door seals for example) there is comment to recommend the relocation of the tag to the face of the door on the top hinge side.

Who can tag a fire-resistant door has been defined since the Standard revision in 1990. In looking at the possibility of retagging a fire-resistant door which has lost its compliance tag, we must firstly satisfy ourselves that we are able to.

For doorsets manufactured and installed prior to 1990, the Standard provided no definition as to who could tag a fire-resistant doorsets and as such it would be reasonable to assume that doorsets of this era are able to be tagged by anyone who could satisfy the requirements of assessing the installation and making the determinations required by the relevant code at the time the doorset was manufactured and installed.

For doorsets installed between 1990 and 1997, the definition provided for who can tag a fire-resistant doorset was defined as “The Supplier”, defining the supplier as the sponsor of the test on the prototype fire-resistant doorset who certifies that the doorset, when installed, complies with the Standard. Considering this definition, to retag a doorset manufactured and installed during this time you would have to identify the core of the door to then identify the “Sponsor”. Additional to this would be your ability to identify the year of manufacture and installation.

For doorsets installed since 1997 the manufacturer or certifier has been defined as the allowing tagging entity. To tag a doorset manufactured and installed in this period you would have to be able to identify who the original manufacturer of the door was in order to seek their authorization to retag a fire-resistant doorset.

The issue of being able to retag a fire-resistant doorset is a hot topic with companies on both sides of the fence. The issue of “should you retag a fire door” is not discussed in this article and it is incumbent on individuals making claims of being able to retag fire-resistant doorsets that they can do so in accordance with the requirements of the Standards.

As with the physical requirements of a tag, documentation has been a requirement since 1972. The details of documents and the form in which they are provided has changed over revisions but in general, a “schedule of evidence” or “evidence of compliance with the code” has been required. An example of the documentation to be provided is given at the back of most Standard revisions.

A NOTE ON ASBESTOS

A common practice for identifying a fire-resistant doorset is to remove the lockset to expose the inner core of the door. By exposing the core an experienced individual may be able to identify the type of core and the potential manufacturer or sponsor/applicant.

If you do undertake this practice please be mindful that fire doors manufactured up until the early 1980’s were predominantly manufactured using asbestos as the core material. Removing the lockset can lead to exposure to asbestos fibres and should be avoided at all costs. If you suspect that a door may contain asbestos then it would be advised that the appropriate controls are put in place prior to removing the lockset to ensure exposed asbestos is contained.

Table below summarises State and Territory Acts and Regulations with respect to working with Asbestos.

State / Territory Act Regulations
QLD Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 2008
NSW Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2001
ACT Work Safety Act 2008 Work Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2009 Dangerous Substances (General) Regulations 2004
VIC Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007
TAS Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998
SA Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare (SafeWork SA) Amendment Act 2005 Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1995
WA Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996
NT Workplace Health and Safety Act 2007 Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 2008

(Source http://www.asbestosaustralia.com.au/ )

In looking at the current Australian Standards, and having recently drafted an article on the history of fire door tags in Australia (to be possibly published in the Fire Protection Association of Australia publication “Fire Australia”), this question has been running over and over in my mind.

Some would say I need a life and I would tend to agree with you but never the less I intend to delve into this in a little greater detail.

If a tag is on the edge of a fire door, what does it mean to the average Joe public? Does it give them any assurance that the door is in fact a fire door? Would average Joe public know what the details on a tag mean or would they simply assume that it is a fire door regardless of what the tag stated?

My opinion and one which others may disagree with is that the tag on a fire door is not for average Joe public, it is for the Authorities and Service Companies who actually know what the details on the tag are supposed to mean, and what direction it provides in the ongoing maintenance and assessment of the particular fire door.

Without going into too much detail, the fire door tag provides the context, the picture of what kind of fire door it is, who made it, who tested it, what its performance level is etc.

If I walked up to the average person on the street and asked “what does AS1905.1 mean?” I am pretty sure I would receive a perplexed look and rightfully so. There is no reason why the average Joe needs to know this sort of information that is why there are professionals who provide the inspection and assessment of these assets, people who do know what these things are and more importantly what they mean and why they are so important.

Now if you agree with me so far then let’s take this a little further. The current Australian Standards require a metal tag of a certain size with certain information on it to be fitted to each fire door. The tag is generally fitted to the hinge side of the door approximately 1.5m from the finished floor level. Along comes the painter and 9 times out of 10 the tag is painted over negating any information provided as it is covered over and the tag installed was not made in accordance with the requirements of the Standard (i.e. embossed or recessed numbers and letters).

Tags also have the misfortune of falling off or being removed.

Painting a tag, tags falling off or tags being removed all have the same effect, it basically removes the information required to properly inspect, maintain and assess the fire door, the doors identity.

The question I asked myself some time ago was “Is there a better way to tag a fire door?” and the answer I came up with was a resounding yes. Technology has come a long way since the 1970’s when we saw tag requirements in an Australian Standard for fire doors (CA57.1-1972). Computers and technology in the 1970’s was vastly different to now. Where a computer may have taken up an entire floor of a building, now we can hold them in the palm of our hands. Things are just getting smaller and smaller and smarter and smarter.

One such advancement in technology has been the identification of things. We went from metal identification tags or simple labels to Bar Codes. This advancement enabled the beginning of the automation age with respect to data capture in which information could be attributed to an asset by reference to an identification method that could be read by a machine thus speeding up the process of data gathering and reporting.

While this provided some benefits, the fact that a visual line of sight was still required to enable reading of a barcode, many of the problems with metal tags still remained, namely requiring the visual identification of information to be read either by person or by machine. As with metal tags, bar codes could be rendered useless if painted over, scratched or dirty and could just as easily be removed or fall off.

The other down side to bar codes in asset identification is the ease in which they can be replicated. This ease of replication is not conducive to the identification of assets in which life safety is an issue. If an identification tag can be easily replicated then it fails on the basic level of integrity. For this reason it would not be reasonable to to replace the current method of tagging with bar codes as there is no improvement in relation to identification of the asset and no improvement in the ability to ensure life safety.

The technology I am currently heavily involved in the development of Radio Frequency Identification, in essence a bar code on steroids.

Unlike bar codes, RFID Tags do not require a line of sight i.e. you can paint right over the top of it or hide it within the asset and still be able to identify the asset by a unique identification number which is almost impossible to replicate.

The RFID tag is a tiny microchip with an integrated antenna which is read from, and written to via an RFID reader. The ability to not only read from but write to an RFID Tag gives an additional benefit which metal tags and bar codes could never provide, information about the asset at the asset.

Because we can have the tag out of sight or can paint over it, this allows the design of a housing which can be more secure and less susceptible to removal either on purpose or by accident. RFID tags are not bullet proof but they do provide a substantial number of benefits which metal tags or bar codes simply cannot match.

So in regards to improvements on the current tag specification in the Australian Standards, I see the following improvements;

  1. Can be painted over
  2. Through design can be almost impossibly to remove
  3. Can hold information about the asset at the asset
  4. Can be read from and written to

There is a down side however and that is that in order to read the RFID Tag you have to have a RFID reader and an application which allows you to obtain the details from the tag. This in essence restricts who can obtain the information, but if we consider who really needs to obtain the information then is this really an issue?

RFID Tag does cost more than a bar code or a metal tag, or at least they do at the moment, but if we look at the cost of replacing a door because the tag (i.e. a metal tag on the edge of the door as opposed to a RFID Tag fitted into the door in some manner) is missing then the initial cost of an RFID Tag vs a metal tag is quickly negated.

If my arguments at the start of this blog are correct, and a tag is really there for an authority or a service technician, then there is no real need for average Joe public to even know there is a tag there, simply because it really has no meaning for them.

The critical thing is to have the right information available to the right people (i.e. authorities and the service technicians) so inspection and assessments can be properly undertaken to ensure life safety is not compromised.

There could be an argument that you cannot force people to implement technology as this is an additional cost but are we doing ourselves an injustice by not at least considering this technology as an alternative to the existing tagging methods. Do we have to have one or the other or can we have both?

Closed systems where data is only able to be obtained if you pay a particular company a ridiculous amount of money can be counteracted by being smarter in the design of our Standards. Instead of mandating a certain type and size of an identification method why can we not have a specification of what information the tagging method needs to provide, who it needs to provide it to and further if this does take the form of electronic recording of information, specify how this data is to appear so it can be available to anyone authorised to obtain the information.

There is no reason why life safety cannot be assisted through advancements in technology. If we have a tag that is difficult if not impossible to remove then we have the essential details available at the door which guide how that door should be inspected and assessed and we further mitigate the possibility of having to replace the door just because of a missing identification tag.

I came across a very interesting term, “disruptive technology”. The term disruptive technologies (later amended to “disruptive innovation”) was coined by Clayton M. Christensen and introduced in his 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave (Bower, Joseph L. & Christensen, Clayton M. (1995). “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave” Harvard Business Review, January–February 1995).

A simple example is the fax machine. Business used fax machines for years then along came email. Email was a disruptive technology as it nearly overnight, changed the way we communicate in the business environment. Who is to say that RFID technology is to metal tagging what email was to the fax machine?

Technology should not be put on the back burner because it is different to the current norms, it should be properly assessed and if found to provide additional benefits which enhance the current methods and improve life safety then I feel it is our obligation to outline the potential benefits that technology may be able to provide and seek acceptance of the technology as an alternative to the existing norms.

Not many of us ride a horse to work any more!

This information relates to fire doors in the Australian market and is a suggest course of action but in no way gives a concrete answer to this elusive question.

I have heard this question over and over again and it often follows a client receiving a quotation for a large amount of money to replace fire doors because their tags are missing or have been removed. For the specifics in relation to fire doors tags and what is required this information is found in AS1905.1 section 6.

The following information may provide a way to minimise the unnecessary replacement of fire doors due to missing compliance tags but there is no silver bullet. If you have a missing tag, you have an issue. The main issue is without a tag how can you know it is a fire door and not just a normal door.

Anyway, that’s a discussion for another day.

As a means of minimising the chance of having to replace a fire door due to a missing tag issue I would propose the following course of action.

  1. View the Evidence of Compliance
  2. If no evidence of compliance the building Door Schedule
  3. If no door schedule a Fire Compartment Plan of the door location
  4. If no fire compartment plan of the door location an Architectural or Structural Plan of the floor showing the FRL of the walls adjacent to the door opening
  5. If no plan showing the FRL of the walls adjacent to the door opening seek FRL information from the building owner who may have to engage the service of a certified fire engineer to determine the FRL of the wall (if the construction cannot be ascertained with the assistance of the standard table in the BCA detailing FRL’s of normal building components e.g. bricks, concrete, besser blocks etc)
  6. If no documentation you have a problem and you will most likely have to replace your door.

Document is located and reviewed.

  1. Does the door have a 25mm stop section?
    1. If yes continue, if no door frame may require modification or replacement to comply.
    2. Run a magnet over the face of the door and ascertain if you detect metal behind the face at the location of the essential hardware (i.e. at each hinge, at the closer position and at the lockset position)?
      1. If yes continue,
      2. if no door may require replacement as it may not comply.
    3. Remove the lockset and identify that the core of the door is consistent with the available fire door cores in the market? ***BE CAREFUL IF YOU DO THIS AS FIRE DOORS WERE CONSTRUCTED USING ASBESTOS IN THE PAST AND REMOVING THE LOCKSET MAY LEAD TO EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHICH IS NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION***
      1. If core is identified as an available core in the market continue,
      2. if not you may have to replace the door as it may not comply.

       

    4. Having identified the core, obtain the following details and submit to the core sponsor and request a copy of the relevant test approvals and/or letters of opinion (main core suppliers in Australia include E+ Building Products aka E-Core, Pyropanel and Firecore aka TVC Core). The core supplier may or may not release this information.

DOOR

Height:       Width: Thickness:

WALL

Masonry or  Stud Framing or Other

IF STUD WALL

Stud Material:        Stud Size: Wall Sheeting:

IF OTHER

Wall Construction Details

DOOR FRAME

51 x 25 Rebate or

41 x 25 Rebate

DOOR CLEARANCES

3mm maximum at head

3mm maximum on right and left hand stiles

3mm minimum at bottom and 10mm maximum

FIRE RATING

— / 60 / 30  (1 Hour) or

— / 120 / 30 (2 Hour) or

— / 180 / 30 (3 Hour) or

— / 240 / 30 (4 Hour)

HARDWARE

Manufacturer & Model Number

Lockset/Latchset

Door Closer

Seal

Other

ADDITIONAL HARDWARE FOR PAIRS Manufacturer & Model Number

Head Latch

Auto Flush Bolt

Sequence Selector

Meeting Stile

OTHER FITTED ITEMS

Steel Sheet                    Sheet Gauge:

Capping                      Capping Gauge:

Palusol installed between capping and door leaf (yes/no)

Vision Panel                  Height:                              Width:

Air Grille                        Height:                              Width:                          Model:

Kick Plate                     Height:                              Width:                           Material:

Bollection Moulding

Lead Lined

Steel Lined

Special Veneers or Laminates

On receipt of the test approvals and/or test opinions, review the tests and opinions against the installed fire doorset and confirm that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the test approval and/or opinions.

  1. If yes, door could possibly be tagged and certified including the provision of a schedule of evidence of compliance as required under AS1905.1 and
  2. If no, door may have to be replaced as it may not comply.

There are many cores on the market and also cores which are no longer in the market so the identification of the door core may or may not be possible. In general, if you cannot identify the core of the door you have no way to link it to an established fire test approval and/or opinion.

For the tagging requirements of fire doors in the Australian Market you are well advised to grab a copy of AS1905.1 (Components for the protection of openings in fire-resistant walls) and have a read through section 6 titled ‘Marking and Other Documentation’. In reading through this section take note of the definitions provided for Manufacturer and Certifier.


If you found this article useful or otherwise please provide comments or suggestions so I can improve on future posts.

Passive Fire Protection

To better understand passive fire protection we need to firstly understand the concepts of “Compartmentalization” and “Flashover”.

Compartmentalization is the process of dividing large areas into smaller areas such as rooms within a level of a building. Each room may have a different function. You may have a plant room, an office space, a toilet area, and amenities area etc. In dividing large spaces into smaller areas we can then minimize the effects of one area on another area within the same space (e.g. two rooms on the one level of a building).

Flashover is the point at which there is the near simultaneous ignition of all combustible material in an enclosed area such as a room or the floor of a building (see the link at the end “Living Room Flashover). When certain materials are heated they release flammable gases. Flashover occurs when the majority of surfaces in a space are heated to the ignition temperature of the flammable gases. Flashover normally occurs at 500 °C (930 °F) for ordinary combustibles.[i]

If we look at a Time/Temperature curve[ii], you can see that for a fire to reach a temperature of 500 °C can take less than 10 minutes. From the “Living Room Flashover” video you can see that this occurs in the simulation in less than two minutes.

Passive fire protection measures ensure a building’s structure remains stable during fire, keep escape routes safe, limit the spread of fire, heat, and smoke from one compartment to another, so people have time to get out and fire officers have time to get in.[iii]

If we look at a room like a balloon, the objective of passive fire protection is to keep the air in the balloon for as long as possible. If we have a hole in the balloon the air escapes. If we have a hole in a compartment and there is a fire within the compartment, the fire can move from the compartment through the hole to an adjoining compartment and spread or alternatively the hole can provide additional oxygen to fuel the fire and accelerate the progression of the fire.

Plug up the holes, the obvious and the not so obvious

Passive fire protection is the process of “plugging up the holes”. For a room to be useful you have to be able to get in and out of it. For this to occur you have to create a hole in the wall into which you put a door so you can get into and out of the room.

Now we are in the room we need air so we run an air conditioning duct through the ceiling to the room. If we pump air into the room we have to allow air to leave the room so we leave a hole in the wall above the ceiling to allow the air to circulate through the room.

We want a drink so we go to the sink in the room and pour a glass of water. The pipes carrying the water and the waste from the sink go through the floor to the underside of the roof of the room below.

We plug our laptop into a power point. The cable for the power point runs through the wall and across the ceiling of a number of other rooms to the electrical distribution board.

So for our simple room we have a few holes which during normal activities are required to be there but in a fire can allow fire to spread quickly from one room to another if they are not adequately addressed;

  1. Doorway (Access and Egress Provisions)
  2. Air Conditioning Duct Work and Openings (Mechanical Services)
  3. Electrical Cabling through Walls and Ceilings (Electrical Services)
  4. Pipe Work through Floor Slabs (Hydraulic Services)

Passive fire protection is used to address these issues. The most obvious hole, the doorway, can be protected by the installation of a fire door with an automatic door closer so the door remains closed at all times and does not rely on people to close it.

The air condition supply ducts and return air ducts’/openings can be fitted with fire dampers which activate in a fire to close off the duct or opening and minimise the spread of fire and smoke. Fire dampers are not so obvious and are often installed incorrectly or not installed at all.

The walls can be fitted with fire resistant lining materials (such as fire rated wall sheeting) so a fire in the wall (possibly from electrical cabling) can be contained within the wall and not spread into the room. Fire rated pillows can also be installed in opening made through walls above the ceiling level to run cabling from one room to another.

Pipe work penetrating through the floor can be fitted with fire collars which act as a barrier around the pipe work to minimise the spread of fire through the floor into the ceiling of the room below.

The illustration below gives an idea about the various passive fire protection systems you may find in your facility.

Example of a fire and smoke compartment showing passive fire and smoke protection systems[iv]

 

 

Legend

  1. Fire and smoke barriers
  2. Structural fire-resistant elements–Beams, columns, trusses
  3. Fire-resistant doorsets
  4. Smoke doors
  5. Fire-resistant shutters
  6. Fire-resistant glazing
  7. Access panels and hatches
  8. Ducts and dampers
  9. Fire stopping of service penetration and control joints

Passive Fire Protection measures are intended to contain a fire in the fire compartment of origin, thus limiting the spread of fire and smoke for a limited period of time. This limited period of time is the time needed for people to safely evacuate the building. Fire protection is provided for life safety. Property and financial loss prevention is a by product of keeping people safe and having effective fire systems protecting our buildings.

Passive fire protection as with all fire protection systems and equipment should be installed, serviced and maintained regularly by trained, and where required, certified personnel.

To visualise the importance of passive fire protection the following photo[v] shows passive fire protection in action. The photo is an aerial photo of a brewery fire. You can clearly see how effective passive fire separation can be in protecting the lives of the people in the adjoining space and also the additional benefit of the protection of the structure of the adjoining space.

Looking for further information

The links below are provided purely for your convenience. They do not imply endorsement of or, association with any products, services, content, information or materials offered by or accessible to you at the target site.

http://www.pfpa.com.auPassive Fire Protection Alliance
http://www.nfpa.orgNational Fire Protection Association
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/Institute for Research in Construction/NRC
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/682670/from_living_room_to_inferno_in_under_2_minutes/-Living Room Flashover Video
http://www.firetactics.com/FLASHOVER.htmRapid Fire Progress & Flashover related fire development
http://afscc.org/Alliance for Fire & Smoke Containment & Control
http://www.eapfp.com/European Association for Passive Fire Protection
http://pfpf.org/Passive Fire Protection Federation (PFPF)
http://www.l-com.com/multimedia/video_clips/video.aspx?ID=13100Videos showing flammability of cables based on jacket rating
http://www.fpaa.com.auFire Protection Association of Australia
https://rfidams.wordpress.comPeter Mole’s Blog Page

References
[i] NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, 2-106
[iv] Australian Standard 1851-2005 Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems and Equipment (Page 163, Figure 17.1)
[v] Technical Guide TG-005 (Page 15), John Rakic
Disclaimer This article was written by Peter Mole General Manager at Taylors Doors and Frames and while every care has been taken in the compilation of this information and every attempt made to present up-to-date and accurate information, we cannot guarantee that inaccuracies will not occur. All copyright and trade marks accessible via the links in this article are owned by the respective website owners, or their licensors.