The sector has been waiting for the chance to herald the new European Standard for gypsum plasterboard systems for a long time. Steve Halcrow, FPDC’s technical consultant, explains how that plan has changed and why we may have to shift our focus a little.

Work to harmonise drylining standards across the European Union has continued for several years. We have repeatedly told you that we hoped to bring news of the new Standard being officially born and what implications it may have for contractors.

What has actually transpired, however, is that the member countries of the Working Committee have been unable to reach final agreement on some critical issues surrounding the content of the Standard. As a result CEN (the overseeing body) has decided to suspend the project indefinitely, meaning there will now be no European Standard (at least for the foreseeable future).

The process of assembling such a document necessitates drawing together elements of all existing national standards of the various countries and arriving at a final version that satisfies all, with compromises being made along the way to allow this to happen. There were lengthy discussions on numerous issues which resulted in satisfactory conclusions but, on some matters, two in particular, no agreement could be reached.

The first main issue was that of fixing centres. The approach to this differs widely throughout the EU and as you can imagine each country has spent many years testing and developing systems to comply with their own codes. Bringing these together meant potentially re-testing every system and this is impractical at least in the short to medium term.

The other big sticking point was regarding levels of finish. It was decided that the document needed to provide better information and guidance for the reader on the levels of finish that could reasonably be expected by different products and systems, and to advise on potential pitfalls to guard against when selecting a finishing method. Once again, despite repeated debate, it has proved impossible to arrive at a conclusion to satisfy all parties.

Another option existed: the standard could be produced but have national annexes added so that each country could amend the precise requirements of matters such as the two illustrated here, to suit their own purpose. This was explored at length but it was decided that it diluted the status of the Standard so significantly that it would be of little use, and so the CEN organisation took the decision to halt the work.

New British Standard

The silver lining to this particular cloud is that as a result of the suspension of the work on the European Standard two additional things have occurred. Firstly France, Germany and the UK have decided to collaborate in producing a drylining guide based around the work done towards the harmonised European Standard. It is hoped that this will be available in all countries as an advisory document, although it will not have the status of a full Standard and will therefore not be mandatory.

Secondly and more significantly for the UK it has been decided that a review should take place of the current British Standard, which has not been updated since 1995 and is widely felt to be somewhat out of date. This is due to start during the first half of this year and of course FPDC will be heavily involved to represent members. Once work is under way on this I will keep you informed through these pages as to how things are progressing.

Passive fire protection aims to prevent or slow down the spread of fire to other parts of a building, limiting building damage and providing more time to the occupiers to evacuate or seek refuge. Fire protection systems and materials are typically demonstrated in fire testing to prove the ability of the installed materials to protect an area from fire. Steve Halcrow, FPDC’s technical consultant, considers the dangers of errors and misunderstandings.

It probably goes without saying that of all the aspects of work our members contend with day to day, few could be considered as critical as fire protection, and I make no apologies to regular readers of this column for saying that, as ever, attention to detail is the key message to remember in order to get things right.

One thing I have noticed as I travel around sites attending to members’ enquiries is that there is quite an array of materials being used by them in the fire protection field, from various manufacturing sources and through a wide range of supply routes.

This led to me pondering the potential for errors or misunderstandings and the potentially catastrophic consequences should these happen.

The main areas in which members are using fire protection systems are for firestopping of services and for the fire protection of structural steel. If we discount for a moment intumescent paints then passive protection of steel beams and columns is quite a common element of the work of our members, and is a more specialised activity than perhaps it is in many cases given credit for.

We need to ensure we fully understand the installation requirements laid down by the manufacturer of the firestopping material in question, as they all tend to differ in their use and the differences can be subtle but crucial to performance. As always it is dangerous to make assumptions, however logical they appear.

In the case of firestopping of services, the thickness of material can vary for the same performance level; some require a special coating to be applied once they are in situ whilst others may not. In addition, some require prepared holes in partitions to be lined with plasterboard where others do not stipulate this. The size, number and nature of services being firestopped can have an effect on the method chosen.

With regard to fire-protecting structural steel there are numerous products available and each has its own unique installation rules. Some are board products, some dense rockwool insulation with or without foil faces, some require framing and some self-fix. Interfaces between different types and between any one type and the adjacent structure are critical details and should be regarded with the utmost importance.

There is no simple solution to all this that I can include in this short piece but it is absolutely vital that such details are carefully checked before commencing any operations.

The most common scenario is that installers assume that because they have fixed one type of product in a certain way they can use the same method for another, or that materials can be interchanged on a thickness-for-thickness basis. This is often not the case and each application should be checked before anything is constructed.

Even materials and systems change, so the assumption that, having done it a certain way once it can be done that way forever, is a dangerous one.

There is little doubt that the best advice is to obtain training from the supplier of the material or system you intend to use. Training from an independent body is ultimately the way to go, to get your workforce certified to be able to inspect, install and advise on fire protection matters. There are several certification schemes offering this option.

Perhaps the best starting place though is an independent body representing those who specialise in this field, so try one of the following if you need information: The Association for Specialist Fire Protection – www.asfp.org.uk/index.php Passive Fire Protection Federation – http://pfpf.org/

The Fire Protection Association – www.thefpa.co.uk/fpa_home/advice_and_guidance/fra_guidance/default.aspx Assume nothing, check first always and get informed through training. Then you never need get caught cold in this potentially hot area of our work.