3 Hour FR glass.

[BCO]

I have just come across this article   http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/fire-resistant-glass-fitted-at-leisure-centre  where it is being publicised that a 3 hour (insulation and integrity) glazing solution has been used on a new sports complex in a wall which separates a foyer, fitness studio, pools and spectator gallery. 

I could not think of any situation where this level of FR would be required for regulatory compliance. Am I missing something? 

[Tom Sutton]

BCO

The way I read the article it appeared not to mention integrity only heat insulation and sound insulation. But it wouldn't be the first time I got it all wrong. 

[Phoenix]

The way I read the article it appeared not to mention integrity only heat insulation and sound insulation.

Insulation isn't a lot of good without integrity!

9999 requires 150 or 180 minutes in some situations.  Also, the objective of installing the glazing might not be for regulatory compliance (life safety), it might be for property protection, for which they are at liberty to choose the glazing that best meets their requirements in this respect.

Stu

[BCO]

Tom, yes you are correct. It is not possible for the glazing to be classed as fire resisting unless it has integrity, although the article does not mention integrity it does say it has 3 hours fire resistance. In this instance (glazing) fire resistance means integrity.

Stu, Yes BS 9999 does go up to 3 hours however this appears to be for buildings above 60m and with a B3 category, which is awake and unfamiliar with the building, and with a fire growth rate of ‘fast’ which is applicable to premises containing ‘baled thermoplastic chips, stacked plastic products, baled clothing’. This description would not appear to be consistent with a sports complex (B1/2 maybe?). So it’s still difficult to understand why it has 3 hours FR specified. In terms of asset protection it may be of some benefit to have increased compartmentation, however for it to be of much use there would need to be substantial fire load that would allow fire conditions to continue for a period of up to 3 hours. Given the photo in the article shows the glazing bounding a swimming pool it is difficult to see how 3 hours will be of any benefit for asset protection. Perplexed!

[AnthonyB]

If you read it carefully it doesn't say the Centre used 180 minute glazing, just that they used Pyrostop.

The user testimony part is simply the:"William Penn Leisure Centre in Rickmansworth, installed fire resistant glass between the foyer, fitness studio, pools and spectator gallery." bit.

It then changes into the sales spiel: "Pilkington’s Pyrostop glass has been designed to turn opaque in the event of fire and provide up to 180 minutes of effective insulation from heat in “appropriate” framing systems. It has also been designed to provide some protection against gases." which tells you, the potential specifier, all the abilities & advantages of the product

So if you want 180 minute glazing then you can use Pyrostop - but also if you only need 30, 60, 90, 120, etc

[BCO]

Anthony. I agree it does not actually say that they used 3 hour, however the reference to 3 hours and then the quote from the installer which states ‘“As a public building used by hundreds of people a week it was essential we installed fully insulating fire-resistant glazing that offers the highest fire protection insulation and integrity.’’ Does imply they did.  But you are probably right, who in their right mind would waste that sort of money.