passive and reactive fire protection to structural steel

Tom Lennon and Danny Hopkin

informaTion paper IP 6/12

paSSiVe anD reaCTiVe fire proTeCTion To STrUCTUraL STeeL

the market in the UK, partly because the development of off-site intumescents allowed economies of scale. The development of water-based technologies in the late 1990s significantly reduced the thicknesses and costs of such coatings. However, there have been questions over the reliability of some of the products used and the quality of on-site application. Results from standard fire tests and from the limited number of natural fire tests undertaken suggest a wide variability in the performance of intumescent coatings. In order to address this issue, intumescent coating manufacturers who are members of the Intumescent Coatings Forum have voluntarily committed to a programme of independent product testing and third-party certification.

There is already a great deal of information available in relation to the fire performance of structural steel and the advantages and disadvantages of proprietary fire-protection products. However, much of this information is either outdated or commercially motivated. This Information Paper is intended to be an independent and impartial source of reference, and a guide to sources of detailed information related to the fire protection of structural steel.

This information paper collates and updates available information on passive and reactive fire protection to structural steelwork. it is intended for use by those responsible for specifying fire protection, main contractors, building control authorities and installers. it provides information on the options available to the designer, ranging from the use of unprotected steelwork to the selection of products for extreme events such as hydrocarbon fire exposure. The information paper covers the types of product available, issues around the specification of fire protection to structural steelwork, the advantages and disadvantages associated with each type of product in relation to the construction process, technical performance in tests and how this relates to performance in real fires, and the importance of third-party certification schemes for manufacturers and installers of fire-protection systems.

BaCKGroUnDThe market for fire protection to structural steel has changed beyond recognition over the last 20 years. The cost of fire protection has reduced year on year due mainly to the high levels of competition in the industry driving research and innovation. Traditional fire-protection materials such as insulating boards, spray protection materials, flexible blankets and concrete encasement are passive in that, upon application, they inherently possess the required insulation (subject to curing). Reactive systems are those whose insulating properties are developed during a fire. Intumescent coatings are the most common example of a reactive system. Intumescent coatings have come to dominate

Figure 1: Damage to unprotected steelwork following a large-scale fire test

2 paSSiVe anD reaCTiVe fire proTeCTion To STrUCTUraL STeeL – IP 6/12

situations, such as that related to fires in open-sided car parks, where the fire load (and therefore the maximum temperature experienced by structural members) is relatively low, with a consequent limitation on the reduction in ambient temperature design resistance. For limited fire resistance periods, overdesign for ambient conditions may lead to a reserve in strength that can be utilised at the fire limit state to eliminate the need for protection.

Guidance to the building regulations specifies 15 minutes of fire resistance for open-sided car parks[1]. Provided the load ratio (see below) does not exceed 0.6, then all Universal Beam (UB) sections will achieve 15 minutes of fire resistance with the exception of those sections listed in Table 1, where the load ratio should not exceed the values given in the table. More information is available in a design guidance document published by the Steel Construction Institute (SCI)[2]. The critical dimensions for a universal beam section are illustrated in Figure 3.

All Universal Column (UC) sections with the exception of 152 mm × 152 mm × 23 kg/m used as columns will achieve 15 minutes of fire resistance provided the load ratio is less than or equal to 0.6.

The load ratio is defined as the load or moment at the fire limit state divided by the resistance at ambient temperature. Further information is provided in national and European design standards[3, 4]. The concept of load ratio is illustrated opposite with reference to a worked example.

Consider a simply supported unprotected steel beam in an office (Figure 4). The beam’s section will be assessed using BS 5950-8:2003[3] against a fire resistance requirement of 30 minutes. In order to achieve this requirement without additional fire protection, a relatively large section size and high steel grade have been selected. A similar approach is used in the fire part of the Eurocode for steel structures[4]. Ultimately the European standards will be the primary means of designing structures for use in the UK, with conflicting national standards withdrawn.

inTroDUCTionStructural steel is a widely used construction material. The latest statistics show that steel-frame buildings account for almost 70% of market share for multistorey non-residential buildings in the UK. The behaviour and performance of steel structures in fire has been extensively researched and, compared with that of other commonly used construction materials, is well understood. Steel loses both strength and stiffness with increasing temperature. The correlation between steel strength and temperature can be shown, based on test results (Figure 2). Both strength and stiffness decrease with increasing temperature, and the reduction is particularly significant between 400 °C and 700 °C.

Because of the perceived poor performance of steel in fire, the most common method of ‘designing’ for the accidental load case (fire limit state) of fire is to design the steel structure for the ambient temperature loading condition and then to protect the steel members with proprietary fire-protection materials to ensure that a specific temperature is not exceeded or, more accurately, to ensure that a specified percentage of the ambient temperature loading capacity is maintained. In recent years, the development of structural fire engineering design codes and standards has encouraged a more rational approach to the design of steel structures for fire scenarios. It is now possible to calculate the temperature development within initially unprotected sections subject to a range of different thermal exposures in order to evaluate whether additional fire protection is required and, if so, the appropriate level of protection that should be specified.

UnproTeCTeD STeeL STrUCTUreSIn certain circumstances it is possible to design steel structures for the accidental load case of fire without recourse to additional passive or reactive fire protection. Circumstances where this would be appropriate include

Yiel

d st

reng

th re

duct

ion

fact

or

01400

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

120010008006004002000Temperature (°C)

Figure 2: Elevated temperature strength reduction factor for structural steelwork


The design temperature is evaluated from Table 10 of BS 5950-8:2003[3] based on a 15 mm beam flange thickness, giving a design temperature of 736 °C at a fire resistance period of 30 minutes.

The load ratio (R) at the fire limit state is calculated as:

From Table 5 of BS 5950-8:2003, the load factors (γf) at the fire limit state are:Permanent load factor: 1.0Non-permanent load factor: 0.5 (NB: For a building other than an office, the non-permanent load factor would be 0.8.)

The moment at the fire limit state is:

where b is the spacing of the beams and L is the span.The moment at the fire limit state (Mf) is therefore

calculated as:

Moment capacity (Mc) at 20 °C is calculated as:

where py and S are the design strength of the steel (N/mm²) and the plastic modulus (cm³), respectively, giving a load ratio (R) of:

So, from Table 8 of BS 5950-8:2003, the limiting temperature at a load ratio of 0.2 = 780 °C.

The design temperature of 736 °C is less than the limiting temperature of 780 °C, therefore the beam will have 30 minutes’ fire resistance and may remain unprotected. This procedure can also be used to determine critical temperatures for the specification of the thickness of fire-protection products based on the specific load levels associated with a given project.

Design methods can facilitate the use of unprotected steel in certain specific circumstances. However, using unprotected steel members generally results in the need to specify larger sections than necessary for compliance with serviceability and ultimate limit state requirements. The use of totally unprotected sections is limited to fire resistance periods of 30 minutes or less, and the potential savings need to be set alongside the additional design effort required and the cost of the extra weight of steel, when compared with the use of tabulated information provided by fire-protection manufacturers and the associated installation costs.

parTiaLLY enCaSeD STeeL SeCTionSA number of alternative forms of construction have been developed in which steel sections are used in conjunction with concrete or masonry to provide levels

Design informationUB size: 457 mm × 152 mm × 67 kg/mSteel grade: S355Secondary beam centres: 3 m

Characteristic (unfactored) loadsImposed: 5 kN/m²Dead: 3.5 kN/m²Ceiling and services: 1.5 kN/m²

UB section size (mm × mm × kg/m)

Maximum load ratio to achieve 15 minutes of fire resistance

127 × 76 × 13 0.54

152 × 89 × 16 0.54

178 × 102 × 19 0.54

203 × 133 × 25 0.57

254 × 102 × 22 0.49

254 × 102 × 25 0.56

305 × 102 × 25 0.48

305 × 102 × 28 0.58

356 × 127 × 33 0.58

406 × 140 × 39 0.59

Table 1: Maximum load ratios to achieve 15 minutes of fire resistance[2]

Uniformly distributed load

3 m3 m

Figure 4: Simply supported beam

Figure 3: Universal Beam critical dimensions for 127 mm × 76 mm × 13 kg/m

z

b

z

tf

r

y y

tw

d h

h = 127 mmd = 97 mm b = 76 mmtf = 7 mm tw = 4 mm

R = moment at fire limit state

moment capacity at 20 °C

Mf =62 × 3

8× (1.0 × 5 + 0.5 × 5) = 101.25 kNm

Mc = pyS = 355 × 1453 × 10-3 = 515.8 kNm

R =101.25

515.8= 0.196

L2b (1.0 × permanent load + 0.5 × non-permanent load)

8


fillers including vermiculite. There are two broad categories of board: heavy-duty board, suitable for taking decorative finishes; and lightweight boards, which are much cheaper and tend to be used where aesthetics are not important. Systems are available for fire resistance periods of up to 4 hours, including methods designed to provide protection when subject to hydrocarbon fire exposure or blast resistance. Boards are often used for fire protection to exposed columns for aesthetic reasons. They can be fixed directly to steel members without the need for preparation of the surface (Figure 5), and, as the process is ‘dry’, the fixing of such boards has relatively little impact on other trades. However, installation can be time consuming and may be costly. There are difficulties in providing protection around complex details, and the boards may be vulnerable to damage during both the construction phase and following handover. However, this is a common concern for all passive and reactive products.

Stone mineral-fibre systemsA number of systems are available based on rock mineral wool made from fibres of melted rock, organic binders and oils. Such systems may be bound into higher density slabs using a thermosetting resin. Rock mineral wool systems may be capable of achieving fire resistance periods of up to 4 hours. The cost is relatively low compared with alternative measures, and installation does not have a significant impact on follow-on trades. Fixing is usually achieved using mineral wool noggings and ‘pig tail’ screws or stud-welded pins with spring washers. However, the appearance of mineral wool systems does not lend itself to applications in which the structure may be exposed.

Spray-applied systemsSpray-applied systems may be either cement, rock mineral wool or gypsum based and may incorporate vermiculite, perlite or expanded polystyrene beads as a lightweight aggregate filler. Such systems may be capable of providing fire resistance periods of up to 4 hours. Many systems have been tested and assessed in relation to hydrocarbon fire exposure, and some systems have demonstrated performance subject to both jet fires and blast exposure. Although relatively inexpensive, the method of application can cause disruption on site and may impact on other trades during the construction phase. Application typically requires some form of

of fire resistance. These include blocked-in and partially encased (reinforced or un-reinforced) columns, concrete-filled hollow sections, slim floor-beam systems, shelf-angle floor beams, partially encased beams and asymmetric slim floor beams. In such systems, the thermal properties of concrete or blockwork are taken into account in providing enhanced fire resistance even where this might not be the primary function of the material. Guidance is provided on the application of such systems in publications from the steel industry[2, 5]. The incorporation of ‘built-in’ fire protection provides robust solutions, which are not susceptible to damage on site or during transport and which require minimum design effort to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the regulations with respect to fire performance. However, there may be additional costs and loads to be considered as a consequence of the use of composite sections. In addition, connections between structural elements may be more complex.

proTeCTeD STeeL SeCTionSDespite the developments in design procedures and products discussed above, the majority of multistorey steel structures will still require some form of applied protection to achieve the regulatory requirements in relation to performance in fire. A number of different types of product are available. The following sections provide information on the range of products and the relative advantages and disadvantages associated with each generic type of protection.

Concrete encasementConcrete has good inherent fire resistance characteristics and affords fire protection to the loadbearing structural reinforcement as well as providing the required compressive strength and protection from the elements. For many years, concrete and other traditional materials such as blocks, bricks and tiles were the dominant methods used to provide the required fire resistance to structural steel. In addition to ordinary concrete, autoclaved aerated concrete is available, which can provide excellent insulation, combined with reduced weight. Such methods provide a robust, durable means of fire protection suitable for either internal or external exposure. Although still used for many applications where durability, impact resistance and weather resistance are important, the cost and logistical issues together with the potential problems created by the issue of spalling mean that concrete is very rarely used for multistorey steel-frame structures. Guidance is available on the use of traditional construction materials for fire protection in the BRE publication Guidelines for the construction of fire-resisting structural elements[6].

Board protectionA wide range of insulating-board systems is available, incorporating a choice of different materials – including calcium silicate, gypsum plaster or mineral fibreboard – with resin or gypsum and possibly containing lightweight

Figure 5: Board protection to steel beams


their chemical composition (solvent based or waterborne). They are typically applied through an airless spray system but may be brush or roller applied, particularly for touch-up on site. Thin-film intumescents are typically applied at thicknesses between 0.2 mm and 5 mm.

The increase in market share for intumescent coatings has, in large part, been driven by changes to the construction process. The intumescent coating is now commonly applied to the steelwork before transportation to site. In London in 2007, more than half of newbuild office space was protected using this method[7]. Offsite application has a number of advantages over and above those of site-applied intumescent coatings, including:• reduced construction time and less disruption to the

construction process• improved quality control as a consequence of

offsite process, with surface preparation and coating application taking place within a controlled environment

• reduced environmental impact and reduced risk to construction workers.

However, although costs have reduced over the years, many systems remain costly when applied for long fire resistance periods. Offsite application may reduce the requirement for an additional wet trade on site, but damage incurred during either transit or erection needs to be identified and rectified. Also care has to be taken to ensure that all connections are adequately protected. More detailed information on offsite intumescents is available in SCI Publication P160[8]. The corresponding guidance document for onsite application is Technical Guidance Document 11, published by the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP)[9].

epoxy intumescent coatingsTwo-part epoxy systems are used in harsh environments such as the offshore or petrochemical industries, where enhanced performance and resistance to damage are

preparation, and care must be taken to avoid overspray and to protect areas adjacent to the structural members.

Sprayed protection is often applied to beams rather than columns in areas where the beams will be covered by a false ceiling. The method of application makes it easy to protect complex details, including connections. Spray protection often provides a level of redundancy in relation to fire resistance, and requires little or no maintenance.

Thin-film intumescent coatingsOver the last 20 years, the growth in the use of thin-film intumescent coatings in the UK has been rapid. Figures provided by the UK steel industry show the approximate changes in market share over the period 1992–2005 (Figure 6). The years since 2005 have shown no let-up in this trend, and it is clear that this form of protection now dominates the market and that its domination has been at the expense of ‘traditional’ fire-protection materials, such as boards and sprays.

Generically intumescent coatings provide an aesthetically pleasing surface finish. Through product development, competition and increased market share, the costs of intumescents have come down over the years.

The intumescent coating system generally consists of a primer, intumescent coating and possibly a sealer coat. It is the intumescent coating that provides the required fire protection. It reacts when heated by swelling to many times its original volume (approximately 40 times the original dry film thickness) and producing a layer of carbonaceous char or foam, which acts as an insulation layer to the steelwork beneath (Figure 7). The level of protection provided by the intumescent coating is dependent on the thickness (DFT or dry film thickness), and the required thickness is dependent on the design fire resistance period, the section type, section exposure condition, the section factor and the limiting temperature adopted.

Thin-film intumescent coatings may be categorised according to their means of application (off site or in situ) or

1992

Year

2005

2001

5040302010Market share (%)

Figure 6: Changes in fire protection to multistorey steel-frame buildings, 1992–2005

1997

70600

Boards

Others

Intumescents

Sprays


auspices of the ASFP and the British Coating Federation (BCF) to promote good practice within the industry. This group represents all the principal intumescent manufacturers, and aims to ensure that intumescent coatings for the fire protection of structural steelwork are:• tested and assessed products conforming to European

standards and certified by an independent third party• installed by third-party applicators• subject to independent inspection of completed works,

as appropriate.

Many manufacturers have voluntarily chosen to obtain independent third-party certification for their products. Two levels of performance are required for intumescent coatings. The first relates to the product and the second to the quality of application. For products, third-party certification demands that samples are randomly selected from the manufacturing line by an independent third-party certification body such as the LPCB. These samples are then tested by a United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS)-accredited laboratory to the appropriate British or European test standard.

Originally, most products were tested to BS 476-21:1987[13]. However, national test standards are being replaced by European test standards in order to eliminate technical obstacles to trade and to harmonise technical specification across the European Community. The European Technology Assessments Group’s document ETAG No 18-2[14] is used as the basis for European Conformity (CE) marking of reactive coatings for fire protection of steel elements. The relevant test standard for reactive coatings will be BS EN 13381-8:2010[15] with sections tested according to the heating regime specified in BS EN 1363-1:1999[16].

However, until BS EN 13381-8:2010 is incorporated within BS EN 13501-2:2003[17], the fire-test standard DD ENV 13381-4:2002[18] should be used for the purposes of testing, classifying and CE marking. Although the standard curve used for both the British and European fire tests is the same, the method of controlling temperature is different – meaning that a product that satisfied the requirements of the British Standard for, say, 60 minutes, may not be capable of providing the same level of performance when tested to the European standard. ETAG No 18-3[19] and ETAG No 18-4[20] are the relevant technical specifications used for CE marking products within the defined respective scopes.

performanCe in reaL fireSBRE, over a period of many years, has undertaken a considerable number of large-scale fire tests. In many such tests, passive and reactive fire-protection products were included either for the primary purpose of protecting structural steel members or as indicative specimens used to provide information on fire severity in relation to the standard fire exposure. The results from one such test are illustrated on the graph opposite (Figure 8). It shows the average measured atmosphere temperature; the predicted response according to the

required. These are different materials to the thin-film intumescents, due to the presence of the epoxy binder. The initial thickness of such systems would be in the order of 5–25 mm and the resulting char is both thinner and stronger than that formed by thin-film coatings.

appLiCaTion anD THirD-parTY CerTifiCaTion SCHemeSThe effectiveness of all passive and reactive fire-protection systems is dependent on the technical performance of the products, adequate workmanship during installation, continued maintenance and supervision over the life of the building to ensure that the systems perform their required function in the event of a fire. Although fire-protection products and systems are subject to rigorous testing to determine performance, there is no guarantee that the product is consistent in its manufacture or will be installed to the required standards in real buildings. The risk of poor application and product consistency can be controlled through product approvals and installer approvals to independent third-party certification schemes such as Loss Prevention Standard (LPS) 1107[10], LPS 1531[11] and SD 075 – the Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) scheme for fire protection for structural steel (intumescent systems)[12].

Approved Document B to the Building Regulations 2010 (England and Wales)[1] provides a strong endorsement of third-party certification schemes, such as those run by the LPCB. Such schemes provide the required reassurance to stakeholders that the manufactured product is consistent and will, when installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions to the defined specification, perform in a similar manner to the product as tested and assessed.

fire TeSTinG anD aSSeSSmenTDue to perceived problems in the past with the quality and application of some intumescent products, the Intumescent Coatings Forum was formed under the

Figure 7: Beam protected with intumescent coating during a fire test


referenCeS*1 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

The Building Regulations 2010. Approved Document B: Fire safety. Volume 2: Buildings other than dwellinghouses. London, DCLG, 2007 (2006 edn, amended 2007).

2 Bailey C G, Newman G M and Simms W I. Design of steel framed buildings without applied fire protection. Steel Construction Institute (SCI) Publication P186. Ascot, SCI, 1999.

3 BSI. Structural use of steelwork in building – Code of practice for fire-resistant design. BS 5950-8:2003. London, BSI, 2003.

4 BSI. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design. BS EN 1993-1-2:2005. London, BSI, 2005.

5 Lawson R M, Mullett D L and Rackham J W. Design of asymmetric Slimflor beams using deep composite decking. Steel Construction Institute (SCI) Publication P175. Ascot, SCI, 1997.

6 Morris W A, Read R E H and Cooke G M E. Guidelines for the construction of fire-resisting structural elements. BRE BR 128. Bracknell, IHS BRE Press, 1988.

7 Intumescent coatings. Steel Industry Guidance Note SN19 10/2007. Available at: www.steelconstruction.org/resources/guidance-notes.html.

8 Newman L C, Dowling J J and Simms W I. Structural fire design: off-site applied thin-film intumescent coatings. Steel Construction Institute (SCI) Publication P160. Ascot, SCI, 2005, 2nd edn (also available as ASFP Technical Guidance Document 16).

9 Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP). Code of practice and specification and on site installation of intumescent coatings for fire protection of structural steelwork. ASFP Technical Guidance Document 11. Hampshire, ASFP, March 2010.

* All URLs accessed January 2012. The publisher accepts no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate

Eurocode parametric approach; the standard time–temperature curve; and the measured temperatures from four column sections protected to a nominal 90-minute specification using different intumescent coatings, together with the results from an unprotected section.

The results indicate that two of the sections provided a level of protection corresponding to the design requirement. However, two of the indicative sections reached approximately 800 °C after approximately 60 minutes. At such temperatures the steel members would retain little of their ambient temperature strength, and may be incapable of supporting the loads in place at the time of the fire. The results illustrate that when properly specified and installed, intumescent coatings are capable of providing the level of fire resistance assumed in design in a realistic fire scenario. However, they also underline the need to ensure that the product is fit for purpose and that the application is carried out in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Third-party accreditation schemes for manufacturers and installers are the most effective means of ensuring that the fire protection is present and effective when it is most needed.

SoUrCeS of informaTionThere is a plethora of information related to the behaviour of steel structures at elevated temperatures and passive (and reactive) fire protection to structural steel. For the former, the SCI publishes guidance documents that provide detailed information related to many different forms of construction (see www.steelbiz.org), while for the latter, the ASFP has published several guides related to the passive fire protection of structural steel and inspection of intumescent coatings (see www.asfp.org.uk). A list of installers and products approved by the LPCB is available at www.redbooklive.com.

Figure 8: Measured temperatures of protected columns from a real fire test

1200

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

800

10080604020Time (min)

1000

1401200

Coating 1

Coating 4

EC1

Coating 3

600

200

400

0

Unprotected

BS 476-21:1987Average atmosphere

Coating 2

8

Acknowledgements

The preparation and publication of this Information Paper was funded by BRE Trust.

paSSiVe anD reaCTiVe fire proTeCTion To STrUCTUraL STeeL – IP 6/12

BRE is the UK’s leading centre of expertise on the built environment, construction, energy use in buildings, fire prevention and control, and risk management. BRE is a part of the BRE Group, a world leading research, consultancy, training, testing and certification organisation, delivering sustainability and innovation across the built environment and beyond. The BRE Group is wholly owned by the BRE Trust, a registered charity aiming to advance knowledge, innovation and communication in all matters concerning the built environment for the benefit of all. All BRE Group profits are passed to the BRE Trust to promote its charitable objectives.BRE is committed to providing impartial and authoritative information on all aspects of the built environment. We make every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of information and guidance when it is published. However, we can take no responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may contain.BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX Tel: 01923 664000, Email: [email protected], www.bre.co.uk

Information Papers summarise recent BRE research findings, and give advice on how to apply this information in practice. Digests, Information Papers, Good Building Guides and Good Repair Guides are available on subscription in hard copy and online through BRE Connect. For more details call 01344 328038. BRE publications are available from www.brebookshop.com, orIHS BRE Press, Willoughby Road, Bracknell RG12 8FB Tel: 01344 328038, Fax: 01344 328005, Email: [email protected] to copy any part of this publication should be made to:IHS BRE Press, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX Tel: 01923 664761 Email: [email protected] www.brebookshop.com

IP 6/12© BRE 2012

February 2012ISBN 978-1-84806-251-1

fUrTHer reaDinGAssociation for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP). Fire protection for structural steel in buildings. Published by the ASFP in conjunction with the Fire Test Study Group (FTSG) and the Steel Construction Institute (SCI), 2002, 3rd edn.Ellicott G. Structural steel fire protection. Fire Prevention & Fire Engineers’ Journal, January 2004, pp 59–61.European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA). Guideline for European technical approval of fire protective products. Part 1: General. ETAG No 18-1. Brussels, EOTA, 2004.Fire Protection Association (FPA). Insurance surveyor’s guide – intumescent coatings. IG2 Version 01. Moreton-in-Marsh, RISC Authority/FPA, 2009.Goode M G (ed). Fire protection of structural steel in high-rise buildings. National Institute of Standards and Technology Report NIST GCR 04-872. Gaithersburg, MD, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 2004.

10 BRE Global. Requirements, tests and methods of assessment of passive fire-protection systems for structural steelwork. Loss Prevention Standard LPS 1107, Issue 1.1. Watford, BRE Global, 2005.

11 BRE Global. Requirements for the LPCB approval and listing of companies installing or applying passive fire-protection products. Loss Prevention Standard LPS 1531, Issue 1.0. Watford, BRE Global, 2007.

12 Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB). Fire protection for structural steel (intumescent systems). SD 075. Watford, BRE Global, 2006.

13 BSI. Fire tests on building materials and structures – Methods for determination of the fire resistance of loadbearing elements of construction. BS 476-21:1987. London, BSI, 1987.

14 European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA). Guideline for European technical approval of fire protective products. Part 2: Reactive coatings for fire protection of steel elements. ETAG No 18-2. Brussels, EOTA, 2006.

15 BSI. Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members – Applied reactive protection to steel members. BS EN 13381-8:2010. London, BSI, 2010.

16 BSI. Fire resistance tests – General requirements. BS EN 1363-1:1999. London, BSI, 2010.

17 BSI. Fire classification of construction products and building elements – Classification using data from fire resistance tests, excluding ventilation services. BS EN 13501-2:2003. London, BSI, 2003.

18 BSI. Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members – Applied protection to steel members. DD ENV 13381-4:2002. London, BSI, 2002.

19 European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA). Guideline for European technical approval of fire protective products. Part 3: Renderings and rendering kits intended for fire resisting applications. ETAG No 18-3. Brussels, EOTA, 2006, amended 2009.

20 European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA). Guideline for European technical approval of fire protective products. Part 4: Fire protective board, slab and mat products and kits. ETAG No 18-4. Brussels, EOTA, 2007, amended 2009.

passive and reactive fire protection to structural steel

Documents