The Passive Fire Knowledge Group (PFKG) have published three new documents tackling common misunderstandings in built environment fire protection
The PFKG say that these common fire safety specification errors cause “persistent confusion” with fire curtains, fire barriers, and cavity barriers.
The documents have been made available for free on the PFKG website to share the knowledge and improve development safety.
Improving clarity and safety
In terms of fire curtains, confusion often arises between usage of smoke-leakage-classified active fire curtains and smoke curtains, as the difference between the two is not always clear. Smoke curtains offer no fire resistance, and simply control and direct smoke towards smoke control systems, while smoke-leakage-classified active fire curtains are made to resist fire. Using the term “smoke and fire curtains” in specifications can lead to confusion as if the terms are interchangeable, say PFKG.
Another key misunderstanding arises between the insulation (I) and radiation (W) classifications in active fire curtains. The confusion comes from outdated standards, and these performance requirements are not defined in Approved Document B and BS 9999.
The third and final common error addressed in the documents is confusion between fire barriers and cavity barriers, as the difference between the two is not well understood, and the fact that a fire barrier may be capable of performing both functions.
Will Pitt, chair of PFKG, said: “These Knowledge Shares are about removing ambiguity from some of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of passive fire protection.
“Incorrect assumptions around standards or performance don’t just create technical issues – they introduce avoidable compliance risk into fire strategies and ultimately undermine safety. Clear terminology and evidence-led specification are fundamental.”
Fire safety should be considered early in the development process
Writing for PBC Today, Richard White of Sertus, the UK’s leading smoke ventilation manufacturer, discussed why it is important to implement fire safety planning into design early in the process, rather than leaving it late.
Richard wrote: “It’s easy to think of building fire safety as a late-stage issue. To assume that once other factors, such as aesthetics, structure, and functionality, have been prioritised, the safety measures can be considered and added.
“The truth is that by focusing on safety earlier in the design process, architects, designers and all stakeholders in the construction project are much more likely to retain the design features they have worked hard to achieve.
“The risks of not considering fire safety in the early design stages include project delays, increased costs, and compromises to design features to meet compliance requirements.”
Read Richard’s full thoughts here.
The post New documents to address fire safety specification errors appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
