Joining plasterboard to PVCu

[WWilts]

Koemmerling windows, PVCu

How to fix plasterboard securely to the frame? (A in pic) 
Is there an industrial grade airtight adhesive?

[bassanclan]

Why is it angled?

[craig]

Nothing wrong with a splayed reveal, also allows percentage of frame to be hidden.
 

This may be what your after 

 

[Gordo]

21 hours ago, WWilts said:

Koemmerling windows, PVCu

How to fix plasterboard securely to the frame? (A in pic) 
Is there an industrial grade airtight adhesive?

I assume you are providing a cavity fire barrier at reveals and just omitted for clarity

[James94]

Angled? Each to there own, so you are putting plaster board roughy up to glass and not seeing any frame?

normally cavity closer plaster board pushed to block work with adhesive and maybe a silicone bead up frame or stop bead.

regards. James

[Gordo]

13 hours ago, James94 said:

normally cavity closer plaster board pushed to block work with adhesive and maybe a silicone bead up frame or stop bead.

regards. James

With pvc frames? Frame would be no good. Cavity closer should seal two leaves of brick. Just something to consider.

[Mr Punter]

15 hours ago, Gordo said:

I assume you are providing a cavity fire barrier at reveals and just omitted for clarity

 

He has closed the cavity with plasterboard.  Probably much better than the usual EPS and plastic cavity closer.

[ETC]

The pvc window is still there so the cavity is not closed.

[Gordo]

7 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

 

He has closed the cavity with plasterboard.  Probably much better than the usual EPS and plastic cavity closer.

The cavity closer should offer 30mins fire resistance and not act as a significant cold bridge. (The EPS/plastic patent closers should be certified by manufacturer as cavity barriers). I often see polyurethane insulation used to close cavity in ignorance, that perform as cold bridging but not as a fire barrier. If a fire gets into a cavity who knows where it could spread. Especially if the cavity barriers elsewhere are wanting. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Gordo

[ADLIan]

In many walls,  if constructed to relevant section of Appr Doc B, the cavity closer around openings does not need to meet any particular fire rating. Hence the use of plastic, PUR, EPS and similar cavity closers. Pretty sure the Scot Regs are similar.

[Gordo]

On 29/10/2021 at 20:24, ADLIan said:

In many walls,  if constructed to relevant section of Appr Doc B, the cavity closer around openings does not need to meet any particular fire rating. Hence the use of plastic, PUR, EPS and similar cavity closers. Pretty sure the Scot Regs are similar.

That’s a bit of a flippant statement with dangerous reproductions. Id be interested in knowing what guidance confirms cavity fire barriers are not necessary to openings in cavity walls.  I have attached copy of Table 6 to TB E 2012 to NI B regs. Item 10 which refers to openings applies to all buildings. AD B 2010 paragraph 6.2 confirms same without this table. Scottish guidance says same with different wording

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Gordo

[PeterW]

3 hours ago, Gordo said:

That’s a bit of a flippant statement with dangerous reproductions. Id be interested in knowing what guidance confirms cavity fire barriers are not necessary to openings in cavity walls.  I have attached copy of Table 6 to TB E 2012 to NI B regs.

But your post answers it’s own question - they don’t need to be fireproof. Item 10 Note 5 refers to the cavity closure being formed by a window or door frame - neither of which are required to meet any 30 minute fire resistance. 
 

On 29/10/2021 at 19:15, Gordo said:

If a fire gets into a cavity who knows where it could spread. Especially if the cavity barriers elsewhere are wanting. 

I think you’re referring to cavity barriers in timber frame buildings where there is a clear cavity behind the brickwork. Using full fill fibre or PIR, the chance of fire spread in a block / brick cavity is negligible. 
 

 

 

[Gordo]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

But your post answers it’s own question - they don’t need to be fireproof. Item 10 Note 5 refers to the cavity closure being formed by a window or door frame - neither of which are required to meet any 30 minute fire resistance. 

If you take the trouble to read the whole of the document instead of trying to fuel the ignorance (ie paragraph 4.38) window / door frames are only suitable if they offer adequate FR themselves Ie 38mm timber or 0.5mm steel.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Gordo

[Gordo]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

I think you’re referring to cavity barriers in timber frame buildings where there is a clear cavity behind the brickwork. Using full fill fibre or PIR, the chance of fire spread in a block / brick cavity is negligible.

 

I am not referring to timber frame buildings. This applies to traditional cavity call construction. Timber frame construction has increased requirements including reduced maximum interval spacing between barriers. Please be careful and research subject before you offer advice on life safety issues. I have researched this subject thoroughly using many different authoritative guidance on the subject.
 

Granted if it’s A1 fire rated insulation it would less of a hazard, I have debated the merits myself but cavity still requires cavity barriers if you wish to build to standards. If you don’t provide them then take your chances and hopefully there will be no repercussions.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Gordo

[PeterW]

12 minutes ago, Gordo said:

Please be careful and research subject before you offer advice on life safety issues. I have researched this subject thoroughly using many different authoritative guidance on the subject.

Are you qualified or is this your opinion on this ..? Reason I ask is English and Welsh building regs do not require the cavity closer to be fire rated. The plasterboard finish layer provides the necessary fire resistance in the construction. 

 

24 minutes ago, Gordo said:

If you take the trouble to read the whole of the document instead of trying to fuel the ignorance (ie paragraph 4.38) window / door frames are only suitable if they offer adequate FR themselves Ie 38mm timber or 0.5mm steel.

Well don’t post a table that only has part of the information - post the link to the document if you want to refer to something else. There is no ignorance of English Building regulations - I have the full set as reference.
 

 

 

[Gordo]

32 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Are you qualified or is this your opinion on this ..? Reason I ask is English and Welsh building regs do not require the cavity closer to be fire rated. The plasterboard finish layer provides the necessary fire resistance in the construction. 

 

Well don’t post a table that only has part of the information - post the link to the document if you want to refer to something else. There is no ignorance of English Building regulations - I have the full set as reference.
 

 

 

Indeed I am very well qualified both by qualification and experience. I have gone to the trouble to present the background facts. Therefore it is not an opinion. As stated the Scottish and English guidance say the same? As does BS9999 the fire bible, NHBC etc etc. I don’t intend to look at the Welsh also but would be amazed if they conflicted with the others.

 

I advised that cavity barriers are required to openings. I didn’t expect someone to try and argue that they are not. Should I just have posted the full guidance TB E, AD B, BS9999 etc as you imply? If you want to dispute that they are required in AD B then go a head and quote the paragraph you are referring to that supports your view. It’s not the document I usually use but I will entertain you. I’d suggest you start with AD B 2010 paragraph 6.3. Do you need me to quote the specification for a cavity barrier too?

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Gordo

[Gordo]

Sorry I would prefer not to hi jack this post with this argument. But the aim is to make everyone aware so they make informed decisions whatever they then chose to do.

[PeterW]

OK with all due respect you’re wildly out of date, and the advice you are giving is incorrect against current regulations.  
 

ADB (2020) is the latest version of the English Building Regulations and the section that you should be referring to is 5.3 onward that relates to compartmentation and the use of compartments. 
 

From that, the image below is from that section relating to 5.18

 

 

You’ll also note that note 1 states the following :

 

Materials used to close the cavity in this arrangement do not need to achieve a specific performance in relation to fire resistance.
 

A link to the full present version of the AD B is here

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/937931/ADB_Vol1_Dwellings_2019_edition_inc_2020_amendments.pdf

 

Your reference to BS9999 is also in error - assuming you have read BS9999 you will note that it excludes domestic dwellings and the fire provision for those is in BS9991 

 

BS 9999 is not applicable to the following types of buildings, which are covered in BS 9991: dwellings (single-family dwelling houses, self-contained flats or maisonettes); and residential accommodation blocks, eg for students or hospital staff, with individual bedrooms and the provision of kitchen/sanitary facilities constructed within a fire compartment.

 

8 hours ago, Gordo said:

It’s not the document I usually use but I will entertain you.

Fire safety is not something that entertains me it all - but if you want to quote documents then please ensure they are correct, and the version is up to date. 

[ADLIan]

Thanks  PeterW. Beat me to it with that reply. We need WWilts to confirm if we are under English Regs.

[Gordo]

3 hours ago, PeterW said:

OK with all due respect you’re wildly out of date, and the advice you are giving is incorrect against current regulations.  
 

ADB (2020) is the latest version of the English Building Regulations and the section that you should be referring to is 5.3 onward that relates to compartmentation and the use of compartments. 
 

From that, the image below is from that section relating to 5.18

 

 

You’ll also note that note 1 states the following :

 

Materials used to close the cavity in this arrangement do not need to achieve a specific performance in relation to fire resistance.
 

A link to the full present version of the AD B is here

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/937931/ADB_Vol1_Dwellings_2019_edition_inc_2020_amendments.pdf

 

Your reference to BS9999 is also in error - assuming you have read BS9999 you will note that it excludes domestic dwellings and the fire provision for those is in BS9991 

 

BS 9999 is not applicable to the following types of buildings, which are covered in BS 9991: dwellings (single-family dwelling houses, self-contained flats or maisonettes); and residential accommodation blocks, eg for students or hospital staff, with individual bedrooms and the provision of kitchen/sanitary facilities constructed within a fire compartment.

 

Fire safety is not something that entertains me it all - but if you want to quote documents then please ensure they are correct, and the version is up to date. 

Thanks for the link to AD B. I did say AD B is not my usual source of advice, and humble apologies for not using the latest amended version, however the essence of fire safety advice rarely changes, only how it is presented. This Diagram 5.3 is commonly misquoted as it was in the previous ADs and the NI TB E. The diagram only related to 5.18c where some cavity barriers may be omitted where cavities are closed as per the diagram. It does not mean that all cavity barriers need not have FR obviously, only a lower standard (than 30/15 FR) ie 38mm timber or 0.5mm steel is a lower standard but can be accepted in ADB 5.21. The presentation of this is quite confusing and should be improved in AD B hence our debate.

 

 

I have indeed read both BS 9999 and BS 9991. Again humble apologies for quoting BS 9999 instead of BS 9991 but they both concur. Both BS 9999 paragraph 34.2.1 and BS 9991 paragraph 19.1.1 are identical and offer more clear guidance than AD B on this subject and confirms my stance that cavity barriers are required and PVC Frames are not suitable alone.
 

I did not imply the subject matter entertained you. I said I would entertain your argument. Very different things. It is obvious you have decided that you wish to exploit perceived  loop holes in the wording of ADB for a lower standards of fire safety, which is a shame but I would advise against promoting this view to others.

 

cavity barriers around window opening was one of the big failures in Glenfell tower disaster. Where PVC and spray foam and such inappropriate materials were used around pvc windows and services. That failure in the flat where the fire started was the catalyst for what ensued. 
 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Gordo

[bassanclan]

Just to clarify this tit for tat.

 

Fireproof cavity barriers are not and have never been required for brick/block cavity walls.

 

Cavity closers are regularly used, but not usually fire rated.

This is not a loophole people are exploiting.

 

Many people wish to build their houses to higher standards than building regulations (mainly insulation wise), but it is their choice. 

[Gordo]

30 minutes ago, bassanclan said:

Just to clarify this tit for tat.

 

Fireproof cavity barriers are not and have never been required for brick/block cavity walls.

 

Cavity closers are regularly used, but not usually fire rated.

This is not a loophole people are exploiting.

 

Many people wish to build their houses to higher standards than building regulations (mainly insulation wise), but it is their choice. 

You are mistaken my friend cavity barriers do require FR.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Gordo

[PeterW]

43 minutes ago, Gordo said:

Very different things. It is obvious you have decided that you wish to exploit perceived  loop holes in the wording of ADB for a lower standards of fire safety, which is a shame but I would advise against promoting this view to others.

I’m not exploiting loopholes - it’s how the standard is applied in AD-B and used extensively. Grenfell - and a lot of the other issues with fire safety in multi unit buildings including terraces - highlighted the issues over this subject in that it can be misinterpreted, hence why I’m always clear to quote which version of the regs I am referring to. 
 

There is a great deal of opportunity to improve fire safety in the U.K. but sadly there is little impetus to do so - intumescent strips in doors or frames add very little cost but can save lives, and yet they are a very rare occurance unless a BCO insists. All of these items - such as increasing the number of smoke and heat alarms, to the introduction of sprinklers in lower rise buildings - should be reviewed and not just as a knee jerk reaction to when a major incident occurs. 

[bassanclan]

39 minutes ago, Gordo said:

You are mistaken my friend cavity barriers do require FR.

https://www.toolstation.com/ybs-24m-easi-close-eps-white-cavity-closer/p48227

 

Maybe @Gordo is talking about NI building regulations which I am not familiar with

Edited October 31, 2021 by bassanclan

[Gordo]

4 minutes ago, PeterW said:

I’m not exploiting loopholes - it’s how the standard is applied in AD-B and used extensively. Grenfell - and a lot of the other issues with fire safety in multi unit buildings including terraces - highlighted the issues over this subject in that it can be misinterpreted, hence why I’m always clear to quote which version of the regs I am referring to. 
 

There is a great deal of opportunity to improve fire safety in the U.K. but sadly there is little impetus to do so - intumescent strips in doors or frames add very little cost but can save lives, and yet they are a very rare occurance unless a BCO insists. All of these items - such as increasing the number of smoke and heat alarms, to the introduction of sprinklers in lower rise buildings - should be reviewed and not just as a knee jerk reaction to when a major incident occurs. 

Indeed my friend the guidance and clarity of same does need some attention and possibly the standard should even be improved. I can see why you have adopted this interpretation reading AD B and we will have to agree to disagree. It is a worthwhile debate after all.