After over 20 years in the industry, it baffles me how there can be so much ambiguity when it comes to fire rated glazing.
How can a partitioning manufacturer claim that by installing fire rated insulated glass into non-thermally broken aluminium channels, that the system can truly be certified as integrity and insulation? It doesn’t make sense. In the event of the fire, the aluminium will fail after a short period of time (15 minutes in some cases) allowing heat to transfer through. That is NOT an insulated system.
Then you have a different method of build and different components for each manufacturers fire rated system. How do we know that these are being built correctly? I ALWAYS provide project specific detailed drawings and build information to the installers, but I know for a fact that most others don’t. My clients know that I will be on site to advise if they haven’t built a fire rated system before and they put their trust in me.
So, when I look at a specification (a recent one that landed in my inbox) that asks for 12.4mm butt jointed intumescent glass at 2700mm high, over a span of 6 metres, protecting a drop and I say that is not safe, they trust my judgement. If at any time I am in doubt, I get a structural calculation done.
Ambiguity doesn’t just apply to the system manufacturers. I have heard so much conflicting and contradicting advice given by fire officers and building control. Recently, one of my clients was advised that because the system was half glazed, standard 6mm toughened could be used. The reason being, in the event of a fire, the escapees could crawl past. I think that this has to be one of the most preposterous statements that I have ever heard. What would happen if one of those escapees was physically incapable of crawling?
As I said in my previous blog, I like to sleep soundly at night knowing that I haven’t potentially put anyone at risk but it does get me wondering, out of all those that received the same tender for that project I previously mentioned, how many questioned it, how many put forward a correct alternative or refused to tender? More worryingly so, is how many completed projects are out there that aren’t safe and fit for purpose?
This “copy and paste” specification culture does worry me and until it changes, I shall carry on, the way I always have and not be afraid to question and confront them, even if it means walking away from it.