FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: SamFIRT on May 20, 2011, 03:58:46 PM
-
I would like to trawl for opinions of the Fire resistance qualities of PVC.
PVCaware.org States PVC is inherently fire resistant due to the chlorine content and the charring properties of the product.
http://www.webcitation.org/5idIekWiR (http://www.webcitation.org/5idIekWiR)
http://www.bpf.co.uk/Search/Default.aspx?q=PVC+in+fires&btnSearch=go (http://www.bpf.co.uk/Search/Default.aspx?q=PVC+in+fires&btnSearch=go)
Would you people doing Fire RA’s and FS inspections be happy with PVC as an acceptable product for fire resistance for doors windows and cable trunking ? Bearing in mind that as the product chars it looses its intrinsic strength and pyrolises to produce flammable HSG and chlorine gas?
-
No, that's nonsense.
Fire resitance is a property that relates to a construction, not a material.
It is conceivable that you could make something out of PVC that could pass a fire resistance test but I doubt it would be viable.
-
Fascinating links Samfirt. No vested interest there then. :)
The bottom line is this. Show me a BS476 or equivalent test certificate for the assembly and I will accept it. Till then I wont.
Had this argument with a builder last week over a pvc window frame he had installed beneath an external steel staircase serving flats. He assured me that the pvc frame has a steel lining throughout. But since his georgian wired glazing is held in with bits of plastic and silicone gaskets theres nothing to hold the glass in place.
-
When we are talking fire resistance we are looking at the ability of a material to resist a fire due to the type of protection it has, in terms of stability, integrity and insulation. I agree with Kurnal, PVC windows and doors within 1.8m of external escape stairs etc....are often as much use for the situation in which fire protection is required as the proverbial chocolate teapot.
As far as I know there is no such thing as fire resistant PVC, I remember asking someone years ago from the BPF Cellular PVC Group about this.
The BPF advised that it would be too expensive to manufacture FR PVC even if someone had the inclination to bother.
It is correct that most frames have metal inside; for those that haven't seen PVC doors and windows perform. This is what happened in a recent Normal House fires - fire started in kitchen. I took these pictures for reference on this very subject during the investigation.
http://cid-25a7466558c48ec1.skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?page=play&resid=25A7466558C48EC1!133 (http://cid-25a7466558c48ec1.skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?page=play&resid=25A7466558C48EC1!133)
Note the metal frame in the door and the melting of the window
-
Another link I can't get to work. Is it me again?
These PVC people appear to be blurring the distiction between fire retardancy and fire resistance - two entirely different characteristics. The fact that they're doing this is bad enough, if they are doing it deliberately then it is reckless and irresponsible.
Stu
-
Like many others I think they've mis-used the term unwittingly.
Theres no problem with UPVC doors and windows but you won't get one to pass a fire resistance test.
-
Thanks for all the replies so far.
It would appear there is a legal or specification differential between the terms fire retardant e.g. the lack of propensity for ignition and fire resistance. (I suppose in building construction and FSO terms)
Both terms (i.e. fire retardant and fire resistance) seem to have been used in the links I have attached in my original post.
Could you TFS / RA people please advise specifically of the definitions as you apply them? I am very interested.
The thing that really worries me is; if the manufacturers and installers of this product really feel there is no added hazard by using this product they either do not understand full compartment fire dynamics, are in denial, or are hoping they won’t be found out. Worrying.
Don’t misunderstand me; I understand UPVC is an excellent and versatile building medium. What I do not understand is the line being given by PVC industry that it is non-contributory to fire development. Now that is not specifically what the attached links say, to be fair. But others in the industry, in the distribution retail and fixing stages seem to believe it, in my experience?
Opinions ?
-
Came across this product a while ago which claims 476 standard.
http://www.rehau.co.uk/building.solutions/windows..doors...curtain.walling.systems/fire.rated.system.shtml
-
Thanks Colonel thats the first one I have seen. A useful link that seems to plug a hole in the market.
Samfirt this is commonplace throughout the construction and design industry. Have encountered it myself regularly, the people who market such products and many designers have no appreciation of the differneces between the various concepts in fire performance, and the differences in classifications of linings on the one hand and protection and performance of elements of structure on the other.
Someone was trying to sell a product to a client of mine the other day for use in compartmentation- fully certified with a Class O performance. I offered him a roll of cooking foil as a viable alternative. Then he saw the point.
-
Great stuff anyone know the average cost for a doorset and side panel with window ?
-
No idea on cost but I am aware that some housing providers have heard of it. Check their information but I am sure that the door set etc from Rehau needs to be installed by an approved contractor who has under gone correct training. Not a bad Idea as many fire door installers, no dis respect to carpenters, do not understand the tight requirements when correctly installing doors and frames.
-
Most of what they say appears technically reasonable - PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) is reasonably difficult to ignite & does not readily support self-sustaining flaming. One variety of it is used for sprinkler pipes, for example. Like anything combustible, it'll contribute to a fire if one starts, but small (low power) ignition sources are unlikely to get it going. It does, however, produce dioxins when burnt & if water is used on fires involving PVC then hydrochloric acid is produced, which is highly irritant & has dire effects if it condenses out on any kit.
You could conceivably produce fire-resistant constructions using PVC, but you could say that for more or less any material - the PVC itself would contribute very little to the fire resistance - you'd need to use other materials (wood, metal, thermosetting plastics etc) to build the fire-resisting structure itself, because PVC melts at such low temperatures.
On the subject of terminology, there are some definitive sources:
- In England & Wales, the Approved Document B, especially Appendix E;
- BS 4422:2005 - Fire — Vocabulary
- BS EN ISO 13943:2010 (Fire safety — Vocabulary);
-
Rehau is the only manufacturer / supplier I know of who claim their upvc products are certified to / compliant with BS 476.
On a similar subject, I understand you can now get composite doors certified to BS 476 - has anyone had cause to specifiy / source one yet?
SamFRIT . Definitions are at most confusing, look in a dictionary and the words fire retardant and fire resistant are used almost interchangeably. Some websites mention the following definitions: " A fire retardant material slows burning across the surface of a combustible substrate. A fire resistive material delays heat penetration through a substrate".
I don't totally agree with the wording of those definitions, but they are along the right lines.
-
It is a clear misuse of the term "fire resistance". People promoting PVC will usually talk about its 'fire performance'. What they generally mean is how it contributes to the risk of fire, i.e. Toxic products, heat output, ignitability etc. If this is the only criteria that you want to compare, then standard glass also offers an increased level of "fire performance". Something that melts between 100C and 260C is not something that is likely to ever pass the applicable 476 tests for fire doors/construction without some major modifications.
Most of the literature that can be found does give out some truthful technical info, but they do a good job of hiding some important stuff too. The PVC brigade seem to carefully avoid talking about the rate of CO production of PVC, usually talking about the production of HCl instead, sometimes to the extent of claiming that HCl production is actually a benefit due to its irritant properties and its ease of detection. PVC has a much higher rate of CO production than wood. 0.06g/g as opposed to 0.002g/g.
-
Midland.
Have come across at least one housing association that is fitting composite doors to flats onto common areas, they have indicated that they comply with BS 476 but have not had sight of the documentation or manufacturer. Will try and get some more info which may take a little time as away on holiday at the moment in sunny (it's raining) St. Ives
-
Midland.
Have come across at least one housing association that is fitting composite doors to flats onto common areas, they have indicated that they comply with BS 476 but have not had sight of the documentation or manufacturer. Will try and get some more info which may take a little time as away on holiday at the moment in sunny (it's raining) St. Ives
Is that St Ives where it never rains? Lucky boy.
-
There are some FR doors on the market with a PVC finish on them.
-
It rained yesterday but today was fine and managed a reasonable session outside of the Sloop Inn with the odd cold larger or 4. Hard work this holiday thing, just wish clients would take the hint that I am on holiday.
-
Brian, I think you will find that there are what appear to be uPVC doors that are fire resistant by virtue of an FR core.
-
Brian, I think you will find that there are what appear to be uPVC doors that are fire resistant by virtue of an FR core.
Interesting.
How can you tell? ( pre fire not post fire ....of course) ;D
-
Brian, I think you will find that there are what appear to be uPVC doors that are fire resistant by virtue of an FR core.
Interesting.
How can you tell? ( pre fire not post fire ....of course) ;D
You can't, irrespective of the materials its constructed of, its all about a little piece of paper/plastic attached to or accompanies the item, it says so or should.
-
They are quite heavy Thomas.
-
What is the core made of to make it heavy and how heavy?
For example is it comparable to a proprietary front door constructed of sheet steel and PVC? ( they are not very FR in my experience by the way).
-
True Colin we used it as one of the criteria when attempting to determine the FR of a door but in the end still a guess educated guess maybe but still a guess.
-
I appreciate that this is an older thread, but by way of interest I am in the process of reviewing some doors in a block of flats that have been described as fire doors by the building manager. They have an apparent uPVC surface finish with nothing to indicate that they are anything other than a standard entrance door.
I have discovered subsequently that they are composite doors, as discussed above, and that they have undergone testing to BS 476-22 with Warrington Fire. I have read the Warrington report and it confirms that the test was undertaken successfully in regard to integrity. No mention is made in the report of testing in regard to stability or insulation. The doors are being sold as fully compliant 30-minute fire doors. The following two web sites include them in their product range:
http://www.dorwin.co.uk/products/doors/Composite%20Door%20Specification%20.pdf
http://www.permadoor.co.uk/product-fire.asp
I have requested information relating to stability and insulation performance but that is not currently available.
-
BS 476-22:1987 Fire tests on building materials and structures. Methods for determination of the fire resistance of non-loadbearing elements of construction.
Surely stability doesn't come in to it, just integrity and insulation and if it has passed the test then both would have passed the test.
Check out http://www.chilternfire.co.uk/technical-information/article/ti-0801-fire-resistance---testing-assessment-and-certification
-
I appreciate that this is an older thread, but by way of interest I am in the process of reviewing some doors in a block of flats that have been described as fire doors by the building manager. They have an apparent uPVC surface finish with nothing to indicate that they are anything other than a standard entrance door.
I have discovered subsequently that they are composite doors, as discussed above, and that they have undergone testing to BS 476-22 with Warrington Fire. I have read the Warrington report and it confirms that the test was undertaken successfully in regard to integrity. No mention is made in the report of testing in regard to stability or insulation. The doors are being sold as fully compliant 30-minute fire doors. The following two web sites include them in their product range:
http://www.dorwin.co.uk/products/doors/Composite%20Door%20Specification%20.pdf
http://www.permadoor.co.uk/product-fire.asp
I have requested information relating to stability and insulation performance but that is not currently available.
I'm afraid that you're about 25 years out-of-date, Tall Paul! No such thing as 'Stability' under either the 1987 standards or the new ENs - that was something measured under the old BS: 476: Part 8 test from 1972.
The vast majority of fire doors don't need insulation performance, only integrity (or "E" in Euroclass-speak) - see Table B1 of the Approved Document B (if you're in England & Wales). The only exception would be if the door openings comprise >25% of a comparment wall (See Appendix B, Clause 5).
-
Many housing associations are now using Securidor or Permidor fire door sets. THey are of composite construction. THey also have a uPVC coating to the door frames. From a visual inspection the frames just look uPVC and not fire resisting. But documentation appears to indicate that they are fire doors tested to 476.
http://www.securidor.ltd.uk/firesafe.html
-
Indeed. I have seen the certs for some of the Permidors, they were tested by Warringtonfire, and conformed to BS476 - They are becoming very very popular.
-
Many housing associations are now using Securidor or Permidor fire door sets. THey are of composite construction. THey also have a uPVC coating to the door frames. From a visual inspection the frames just look uPVC and not fire resisting. But documentation appears to indicate that they are fire doors tested to 476.
http://www.securidor.ltd.uk/firesafe.html
From their website: "non combustible phenolic foam core" ??? That would be a neat trick. Someone needs to explain to them what "non combustible" means!
-
there are some really high spec ones about - they have a plastic coating and look like UPVC but they are fire doors underneath.
-
I was waiting for someone to tell them that Wee B. You can get heaps of doors that seem like uPVC or fireglass but have an FR core. The days of tapping fire doors or looking a surface finishes ended after the last World War.
-
OK.........................
So I say again
How can you tell?
-
You can tell a great deal by tapping a door Sam. I do it all the time. It will eliminate hollow doors straight away. Then if it appears to be of substantial construction you can tap it a bit harder. That can be especially useful when someone then opens it and you can then look for the label on the top edge or on the hinged edge.
Sorry to be a smartass but some folk round here want to try and help each other out whilst others just want to pick holes in everybody else' helpful suggestions but rarely seem willing to offer any practical solutions themselves. Foll de roll.
-
you can then look for the label on the top edge or on the hinged edge.
If only every door had the label or the cores......most sadly do not! A pity it wasn't mandatory on all fire doors.
-
whilst others just want to pick holes in everybody else' helpful suggestions but rarely seem willing to offer any practical solutions themselves
It would make me very sad to think that comment was directed at me Kurnal? :'(
If only every door had the label or the cores......most sadly do not! A pity it wasn't mandatory on all fire doors.
AnthonyB's post
Is actually my point. Along with my original post pointing out the manufacturers of uPVC are claiming it is in itself intrinsically fire resisting. It is not. And one of the qualities that it is claimed make the product self-extinguishing is the liberation of halogens by pyrolysis in the form (usually) of chlorine gas. Not particularly good for the lungs. Allied to this the pyrolysis liberated vapours are potentially extremely flammable.
I did an interesting experiment the other day igniting petrol on an apparent PVC door. It did not burn in the way I would have expected. The door was not marked or sold as fire resisting in any way. But it had an interesting core. Felt very solid to tapping as well. ;D
I did however, examine a PVC replacement front door to a flat that had charred to destruction and assisted in filling the dwelling with HSG which had subsequently ignited (the HSG not the door). The door was onto a common walkway that originally had been a balcony approach but had been modernised by the fitting of uPVC frame glazing to the balcony (enclosing it to a corridor) and replacement uPVC front doors to the flats. The newly formed corridor had filled with nasty HSG and the heat had started to char that PVC as well.
-
Certainly not Sam. Why ever would you think that?
It was a muted snap in the direction of one Mr Todd, borne of frustration. A passing niggle that comes over me once in a while thats all.
I just wish he would give us a pull out of a hole once in a while rather than watching and laughing if we fall on our backsides. But then again we often have a lot of fun in the mud. ;)
-
He he :D