Enhancing Building Safety: Standardising Processes in Firestopping

On the day, the panel members were Richard Fordyce (specialist project engineer at Laing O’Rourke and a member of the Passive Fire Knowledge Group), Nick Pickles (process and assurance lead for Laing O’Rourke), Paul McSoley (technical compliance director at the Mace Group and a member of the Passive Fire Knowledge Group) and Joe Cilia (technical director for the Finishes and Interiors Sector and also a member of the Passive Fire Knowledge Group). The ensuing discussion was moderated by Craig Wells (sales director at passive fire protection solutions specialist Quelfire).

In essence, and to set the scene, The Passive Fire Knowledge Group aims to investigate, understand, inform and promote knowledge and research in all areas of passive fire protection.

The tragedy of Grenfell Tower has induced many positive changes in the industry, including more emphasis on service penetration sealing and early engagement. The traditional approach to service penetration sealing was to construct a building, create the apertures and then run all of the services through before initiating contact with the firestopping contractor. However, as Craig Wells highlighted at London Build Expo, the industry must approach construction from a ‘design, then build’ method – not the other way around.

Dame Judith Hackitt, author of the report that emanated from the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, stated: “The industry must prepare and should be taking action ahead of legislation coming into force.”

For their part, service penetration seals involve the direct participation of many trades, requiring early engagement, attention to detail and collaboration. In order for these concepts to be successful, an element of cultural change is needed. Does this cultural changed begin with the vocabulary used?

Focusing on fire’s vocabulary

The industry has long employed the terms ‘passive fire protection’ and ‘firestopping’. While not inaccurate, these terms may be considered too generic and potentially misleading for those individuals unfamiliar with fire safety.

In recent years, there has been an effort to introduce the term ‘service penetration sealing’ as a more descriptive alternative. This term conveys the action of preserving the fire ratings of walls and floors by appropriately sealing service penetrations in a given application.

Also finding that vocabulary is often misused in the industry, Joe Cilia noted that terms like ‘soundproof’ and ‘fireproof’ do not exist. He also emphasised the prevailing attitude of the industry around stating that ‘it’s just a wall’. “It’s not just a wall,” asserted Cilia. “We have fire doors, fire glass and fire doors so why not fire walls?” It’s a fair point.

“They are the largest passive fire product by area,” continued Cilia, “yet we don’t describe them as such. If we did, we would be more likely to consider the detail and interface with the structure and elements such as MEP, in turn leading to a ‘safety first’ approach.”

Further to this, Paul McSoley emphasised the importance of accuracy in service penetration sealing, subsequently noting that achieving success in this area begins with making sure the language is right in the first instance.

Best Practice in design and installation

In the guide jointly published by several industry associations and entitled ‘Firestopping of Service Penetrations: Best Practices in Design and Installation’, there are nine ‘Golden Rules’, seven of which relate to the building’s design.

This emphasises the importance of all parties involved – from architects right through to specialist firestopping contractors – engaging from the earliest stages of design right up to the installation phase.

Nick Pickles highlighted the need for a mindset shift regarding design and build contracts. He pointed out that contractors often outline the project’s design only for deviations to be introduced later on down the line.

Embellishing this particular point, Wells highlighted the importance of all parties involved needing to understand the ‘What?’ and the ‘Why?’ He expressed the necessity for increasing the levels of education and awareness in the industry, while in parallel acknowledging the requirement for greater collaboration.

Golden Rules One and Four

The aforementioned ‘Golden Rules’ have proven to be an invaluable resource across the industry post-Grenfell. At conference, the panellists referenced Golden Rule One and Golden Rule Four.

Golden Rule One relates to issuing early engagement with service penetration seal manufacturers and specialist installers. Golden Rule Four is all about following the design process for penetration seals.

Craig Wells stated that early engagement needs to be implemented due to the truism that products must be installed as per the tested scope of application. First and foremost to save lives, but also to avoid extra costs and delays and also improve reputations. Aspects including the positioning of services, the types of services and insulations and the sizing of letterboxes affect product and system efficiencies.

At present, firestopping solutions are typically selected by the main contractor. As such, the latter holds the responsibility to ensure that any chosen solutions are compliant and installed accordingly. As many external trades need to be involved, in turn making it a complex process, it follows that implementing a standardised design process for each project is highly recommended.

Richard Fordyce outlined that Laing O’Rourke has defined a robust process from design through to handover, which clearly explains to designers how to position and size apertures. He highlighted that this affords them the option to choose from multiple tested details as there will be enough space to accommodate services. Additionally, and as the result of a robust design, the application becomes more straightforward, the installation is compliant and, importantly, an easy-to-follow document is issued upon handover.

Paul McSoley added that project planning is a complicated process. “You may select a lovely system of seals only to find out that the product is in the wrong location.” Early engagement and standardising processes are therefore crucial for solving any grey areas before the build process commences.

Procurement practices

Professor Stuart Green’s detailed research into procurement practices found that 17% of re-work on drylining could be avoided, but this could be applied across all areas. Joe Cilia observed: “We’re paying up to 17% more than we need to, at the back end of the job, because it’s not being designed and scheduled properly in the first place.”

Cilia emphasised that the money wasted at the end of a project could be used at the forefront instead, ensuring the layouts are agreed to in as much detail as possible. Extra costs and delays on remedial work can be avoided by involving the specialist drylining and firestopping contractor, not to mention the manufacturers, in the early stages of the project.

Meanwhile, Richard Fordyce stressed that having a plan is essential. When the plan contributes to improved outcomes in terms of penetration sealing, there’s no alternative approach. This provides better metrics and established rules and frameworks, as well as facilitating continuous improvement in construction practices each year. Consequently, this requires internal collaboration within the industry to establish compliant processes in parallel with external collaboration to ensure the golden thread is easily traceable and followed.

Competency in construction

Competency can be hard to measure, assess or evaluate as there’s no benchmark against which to assess/compare it. Nevertheless, the panel of speakers agreed that competency can be observed through skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours.

Paul McSoley affirmed that there’s a vast amount of information available on pipes, trays, ducts and dampers. The Best Practice Guide alone plays host to 72 pages, duly illustrating the knowledge required to ensure these products are installed correctly. McSoley pointed out that architects are expected to take on this level of work, but can only do so if other parties involved in the process share the correct information.

Richard Fordyce outlined that competency is an emerging topic and predicted the industry will begin to recognise it as a distinct construction discipline. One that’s similar to architecture and structural engineering, for example. The challenge with competency, suggested Fordyce, is that there’s no base level of education; the industry is developing a new discipline, but has to navigate it as it goes. Therefore, establishing competency as a discipline in its own right will require an industry-wide collaboration.

By way of conclusion, Nick Pickles stated that a significant gap exists in education and training. He focused on the leap from Institution of Fire Engineers Level 3 qualifications to first degree and Master’s degree-level education programmes, emphasising the need to find ways in which to upskill and educate individuals involved in construction. “We’re not talking about a leaky pipe here. We’re talking about life safety.”

*Further information is available online at www.quelfire.co.uk and www.londonbuildxpo.com