Fire protection of steels and this example?

[Alan Ambrose]

In this issue of Homebuilding & Renovating p24-31 (the 1st image doesn't have a wavy ceiling, it's just the way the magazine is sitting on my desk).

 

I like the look a lot.

 

My question is: how do they do this without covering the whole thing in plasterboard etc for fire protection?

 

Standard paint over intumescent paint maybe?

 

 

Edited June 18 by Alan Ambrose

[JohnMo]

2 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

question is: how do they do this without covering the whole thing in plasterboard etc for fire protection?

Do you need fire protection if you don't have an upstairs? It could just be roof above?

[Russell griffiths]

As John said. 
Unless a habitable room above then no fire protection needed. 
the timber however would need a treatment to stop the spread of flame. 
 

so a treatment so a fire will not roll across the ceiling and spread to another area. 

Edited June 18 by Russell griffiths

[nod]

6 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Do you need fire protection if you don't have an upstairs? It could just be roof above?

NO

[Alan Ambrose]

But it looks like, from the article, they do:

 

 

[MikeSharp01]

5 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Standard paint over intumescent paint maybe?

That is possible but these days you can get many colours in intumescent. We did our only steels, two uprights supporting a cross beam, in white intumescent they look good but only a portion of them will show.

[Alan Ambrose]

OK school day for me apparently:

 

"A pack with 4,400+ matt and eggshell colours with sufficient intumescent basecoat (Bollom Brosteel Ultra 60) and coloured topcoat (Bollom Flameguard Ultra Vinyl Matt, Bollom Flameguard Ultra Acrylic Eggshell) to protect suitably primed, standard ‘ɪ’ shape structural steel beams and columns in internal environments to 30 minute fire resistance."

 

https://www.rawlinspaints.com/products/5402-zeroflame-aquasteel-wb-30min-system-for-universal-beams-columns.html

 

https://www.rawlinspaints.com/products/5232-bollom-brosteel-ultra-60-30min-system-for-universal-beams-columns.html

 

[Alan Ambrose]

And this:

 

"The basement is not counted when assessing the numbers of storeys for fire resistance and means of escape. Typically, for a two-storey house over a basement, 30 minutes fire resistance is required for the structure..."

 

https://www.basements.org.uk/TBIC/Basements/Fire-Safety.aspx

[Conor]

7 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

In this issue of Homebuilding & Renovating p24-31 (the 1st image doesn't have a wavy ceiling, it's just the way the magazine is sitting on my desk).

 

I like the look a lot.

 

My question is: how do they do this without covering the whole thing in plasterboard etc for fire protection?

 

Standard paint over intumescent paint maybe?

 

 

Just because it's in a magazine doesn't mean it's compliant or passed inspection. Bet half the stuff on grand designs never gets passed without something major being changed. And I've seen several examples in home building mags, e.g. a set of stairs with absolutely no guarding or handrail.

Edited June 18 by Conor

[ProDave]

It just looks unfinished to me.  Some plasterboard and plaster skim would finish it off nicely.

 

And plaster that bare blockwork wall while you are at it.

[G and J]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

It just looks unfinished to me.  Some plasterboard and plaster skim would finish it off nicely.

 

And plaster that bare blockwork wall while you are at it.

Hang on ProDave, if you did that where would the spiders live?  We should be wildlife friendly you know. 😉

[Gus Potter]

9 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

In this issue of Homebuilding & Renovating p24-31 (the 1st image doesn't have a wavy ceiling, it's just the way the magazine is sitting on my desk).

 

I like the look a lot.

 

My question is: how do they do this without covering the whole thing in plasterboard etc for fire protection?

 

Standard paint over intumescent paint maybe?

The starting point here is to actually understand how the structure works. Only then can you come to an informed view. Every design if different.

 

7 hours ago, nod said:

NO

Now it gets technical as while it may not be carrying any vertical load it may be contributing to the stability of another element that requires a higher level of fire protection.

 

7 hours ago, Russell griffiths said:

As John said. 
Unless a habitable room above then no fire protection needed. 
the timber however would need a treatment to stop the spread of flame. 
 

so a treatment so a fire will not roll across the ceiling and spread to another area.

Yes this is a slightly different part of the regs.. fire spread. Clearly what @Alan Ambrose has posted is a habitable space.. but not an apartment i.e a bedroom.

 

4 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

That is possible but these days you can get many colours in intumescent. We did our only steels, two uprights supporting a cross beam, in white intumescent they look good but only a portion of them will show.

Agree.

 

2 hours ago, Conor said:

Just because it's in a magazine doesn't mean it's compliant or passed inspection. Bet half the stuff on grand designs never gets passed without something major being changed. And I've seen several examples in home building mags, e.g. a set of stairs with absolutely no guarding or handrail.

Edited 1 hour ago by Conor

Yes some of the stuff you see is complete bollocks and not compliant.

 

My summary for folk on BH..

 

Use your common sense if starting out on the self building journey. If you want to refine you BC and SE design then great.. we call that value Engineering. But for fire.. be safe folks as there is often no second chance.

 

I'm an SE / Designer and we often design for folk and builders doing daft things, we call this robustness and alternative load paths. This means that if sometihng fails you will see the building protesting.. cracking and groaning so you will get yourself and your family out in time. That is why in the UK we don't read about lots of folk getting hurt due to structural failures.

 

But fire.. look at Grenfell and if you read the local papers you'll see that lots more folk die just in their "wee houses".. many more than Grenfell every year.

 

My advice.. don't cut corners on fire design and safety.

 

For a bit of insight. The fire regs are intended to meet these basic but not all criteria.

 

1/ They are intended to allow folk to escape from a building.

 

2/ They are intended not to put the fire fighter's lives at risk.and their families that they support financially.

 

3/ They are intended to not set light to surrounding buildings and this part of the regs dates back to the fire of London.

 

4/ They are not intended to allow you to save money and put other folk at risk. This means that if you cock up you may be asked to prove that you were not at fault.. you may have to fight a publically funded body not least to prove you were not at fault ..and could lose your shirt.. everything.

 

My advice folks. If in any doubt play safe and don't cut corners on fire safety.. as if your house does go on fire and if you have taken the piss out the regs (have a mercenary streak) your insurer may not also pay out. There is a bit in the building regs in Scotland that says even if you get regs approval the liability lies with the designer.

 

In summary there is a lot of good comments on BH about this.. but every project is different so please do your research. Good research can save you a lot of money and you can still be safe.. but it takes time and effort. There are no short cuts.

 

 

[DevilDamo]

@Gus Potter Which part of that answers or gives your opinion on the OP’s query? We all know why regulations are in place.

[saveasteading]

13 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Which part of that answers or gives your opinion on the OP’s query?

All of it is relevant. It is a complex subject and the rules are a simplified  part of it.

To diverge from approved (fire tested) details is difficult but possible. 

It may be possible to build as the picture because the timbers are dense and very large....the charring acts as a fireproof layer, leaving enough timber to remain robust.

But getting it approved would be tricky.

More likely as @Conor suggests..it is a pretty picture of a UK noncompliant structure. Perhaps it is in another country, or it is now painted in intumescent varnish.

[saveasteading]

11 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Standard paint over intumescent paint maybe?

Don't ever do that. There has to be an approved thickness of intumescent paint, usually white, and it has to be sealed with the official top coat. This can be coloured by the manufacturer.

[Gus Potter]

1 hour ago, DevilDamo said:

@Gus Potter Which part of that answers or gives your opinion on the OP’s query? We all know why regulations are in place.

Ok to go back to the OP. I'll try and expand. Yes I should have clarified... but it should be clear even to you @DevilDamo that this is a bit of an unusual design and can could give ordinary folk on BH working off a budget a false impression. If you know about the regulations then we can cut to the chase?

 

12 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

My question is: how do they do this without covering the whole thing in plasterboard etc for fire protection?

 

Standard paint over intumescent paint maybe?

There are a number of cases how this can work. I'm going to keep this basic and generalise. If you want to discuss this more @DevilDamo then I will be happy to engage with you and have a techincal discussion. I would like it if you did engage as it would be healthy / a bit of a learning curve for BH members and for myself as I could get your take on the regs and SE / structural theory that lies behind all of that.

 

Cases are:

 

1/ If it only carries a roof load.. then we can let the roof collapse provided if does not pull down the other parts of the structure that require a higher level of fire protection.

 

2/ There are cases when you actually don't need to fire protect beams at all to get your 30 minutes. In fact it is often beneficial to let the light weight part of the structure to burn away quickly leaving the main and heavy parts of the building intact. We take advantage of this approach when designing industrial buildings.

 

What the OP has posted tends to apply in domestic applications.. UC sections can be used that have a low heated perimeter over area ratio thus you can have beams as maybe shown in the OP's post, I suspect they have dropped a bollock on this!

 

I thought I had cut to the chase when Alan pointed out that there was load from above.. and thus we were not talking about a roof load only in terms of the building regs.

 

@DevilDamoAnyway no harm done. But if you want to have a more of a blether about this then please be a devils advocate.

 

At the end of the day I'm happy to share what I know and in doing so I'll probably learn a bit more from you and folk on BH can do so too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 19 by Gus Potter

[Alan Ambrose]

Apologies - I was not intending to cause controversy - I was just asking, as a fire regs newbe, 'how does this meet the regs'.

 

Reading this article and looking at the pictures more closely, I think that structurally it is probably a steel frame building entirely (i.e. not a few random steels dropped in for span purposes). It actually appeals to my meccano-kid 5-year old self.

 

So, I suppose nicely coloured intumescent paint is the simple answer.

 

[DevilDamo]

@saveasteading It may be relevant to fire safety in general, but not necessarily to the OP’s question. I’m all for seeing explanations of why things are done in certain ways and that is what I thought @Gus Potter was going to finalise with. The second post is now a little clearer and is probably of more use to the OP. There is always more to the story than meets the eye and this is a prime example.

[Gus Potter]

On 19/06/2024 at 19:57, DevilDamo said:

@Gus Potter was going to finalise with. The second post is now a little clearer and is probably of more use to the OP. There is always more to the story than meets the eye and this is a prime example.

Thank you for meeting me half way on this, much appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

On 19/06/2024 at 19:57, DevilDamo said:

@saveasteading It may be relevant to fire safety in general, but not necessarily to the OP’s question

 

On 18/06/2024 at 13:06, Alan Ambrose said:

Standard paint over intumescent paint maybe?

 

On 19/06/2024 at 00:50, saveasteading said:

Don't ever do that.

I thought it was about as relevant as I've ever been.