Firestop Site

Main Site

Glossary

Comment

an article from 1997 - plus 3 updates 08/2001 (preamble and near bottom of page)

"Performance or objective based building codes and fire modelling are to construction what communism is to government. There is a small and dwindling percentage of people on this planet, who believe in communism. An even smaller percentage of them understand Karl Marx. Communism would probably work in a country, with severe travel restrictions, where only those few believers (in communism) were its citizens and they could neither procreate nor age nor communicate with the outside. Only such purposeful shielding can keep reasonably sane people with real construction experience in the belief that performance or objective based building codes and fire modelling will work -> because the one thing which unravelled communism everywhere and prevented it from working as intended in the first place, is already successfully destroying all the good intentions behind this new approach wherever it is being applied: human nature."

Performance-based Building Codes - Converting the Canadian Construction Industry?

Scroll down please.

Main Site

Firestop Site

Code Evaluations AVAILABLE!

Glossary of Fire Protection Terms

3M Fire Barriers

Vectorising Drawings and Maps; Paper to CAD

Circuit Integrity Fireproofing

Bounding

Code Req's for Firestops

Essay on Performance Based Codes

Master Spec. Section 07840 Firestopping

Related Sections to 07840

Penetration Seal Drawings

Building Joint Drawings 1

Building Joint Drawings 2

Building Joint Drawings 3

History of Firestops in North America

Warnock Hersey Experience

Firestop Trade Jurisdiction

Achim Hering Bio

Man Made Mineral Fibres

Fire Protection Industry Links

Firestop Products and Equipment

Firestop Mortar

Firestop Silicone Foam

Intumescent Products

Endothermic Products

Insulation Products

Caulking & Paint Firestops

Firestop Pillows

Firestop Devices

Firestop Slide Show 1 of 10 Basics

Firestop Slide Show 2 of 10 Code

Firestop Slide Show 3 of 10 No Seal

Firestop Slide Show 4 of 10 Deemed-to-comply

Firestop Slide Show 5 of 10 Misinstalled

Firestop Slide Show 6 of 10 Re-entered

Firestop Slide Show 7 of 10 Faulty Spec.

Firestop Slide Show 8 of 10 Proper Firestops

Firestop Slide Show 9 of 10 Test

Firestop Slide Show 10 of 10 Smoke and Trays

Sample Firestop Listing

Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning; Boiling-Hot Pressure Washing

ULC           UL

T O S

(Theory of Survival)

DIBt

TU Braunschweig iBMB

CONTACT

The National Research Council (NRC), publishers of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) have set an ambitious schedule to convert from the current 1995 NBCC, a 'prescriptive' model code to an 'objective' based, or performance based code. Objective and performance baselines are nearly identical. Since most countries choose the term 'performance', we choose once again to be somewhat unique by the use of the word 'objective'. Apart from that, our NRC says that "objective" codes do contain an unquantified concentration of prescriptive requirements. The first big change that is occurring is that, like the United States' three model codes, our code will also be revised/renewed in 3 year cycles, as opposed to the current 5 year cycles.

For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of model codes, they are typically established at national levels in many countries and become law, once adopted into municipal or state/provincial law. This is certainly true for the NBCC. The provinces each review the new code when it comes out and may or may not make changes to the national model code and then issue a provincial building code. Municipalities, in turn may then repeat this process by establishing by-laws, which then govern construction practices and requirements in said municipality.

Between now and 1998 (our next code issue target), the NRC seeks to create with industry a document to state the objectives (or mandated performance) that is now hidden between the lines of each page of the 1995 NBC. Interested parties may contact the NRC to state what parts of the review process they wish to be involved with. Be prepared to be computer and internet literate to participate, as a great deal of this process is intended to be accomplished by e-mail.

By attending a recent conference in Ottawa ("International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods", hosted by CIB*, NRCC* and SFPE*), I was able to obtain a better indication of the international and domestic movement towards performance-based codes and fire modelling. This conference and its proceedings are further referenced in this article.

Exploring the objectives of what our current code says is theoretically a healthy and useful process. All businesses, as well as many individuals who engage in self-improvement of one sort or another (like Canada looking at her codes) are required to make a searching and fearless inventory of themselves. In both instances, we take stock of all that we have.

The code, however, is not like that. Businesses desire and need to know where they are at to determine where to go from there. In an inventory, we seek the actual, unveiled truth, for no one other than ourselves (and maybe the taxman). Codes are a different animal. What makes up a code? Various rivalling interests are represented not only in writing code texts, which are voted on by committees, but also in the standards writing process, which the codes heavily rely on. A standards committee, writing or revising a test procedure for a building component such as fire doors, chimneys, spray fireproofing, insulation, etc., can actually change the code, because by changing the standard, which is in the code already, reversals can occur. Special interest groups such as manufacturers, trade organisations etc. typically monitor such documents, which are of vital interest to their bread and butter interests, i.e. selling or installing certain products.

So, as we delve in, to do a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves (or our code), we can expect to find a few hidden skeletons, special interest agendas, ground axes, fear-based and reality based experiences. At times, it will be impossible to determine exactly what was behind this or that phrase or concept. We no longer know all the old stories. Some of the authors of certain clauses may long be retired or deceased and we are left with our own devices, common sense, and all our own special interest agendas and so forth. Manufacturers wish to sell more products, owners, developers and general contractors wish to maintain construction costs low in order to stimulate more construction growth, fostering better business. Often these two interests are mutually exclusive. Democracy prevails only in the sense that those interested to show up for meetings and vote, will be counted. If one remains uninvolved in the process, one's voice will not be heard and comments and complaints after the fact are quite in vain.

The Process unfolding now in Ottawa:

In the current review process NRC/IRC (IRC = Institute for Research in Construction, a part of the NRC, building M59 in Ottawa) staff are coming up with intent statements, for instance for part 3 of the code. Then, there will be a review of those statements by a "bottom-up analysis group", consisting of 4 or 5 people, presumably representing the industry, as staff are excluded from this group. The input of this group then goes back to staff for re-writing, evaluation, massaging, etc. Once complete, the standing committee for this part of the code can bless the document or have their say in it.

Once this is accomplished, we will have two documents, a 1998 prescriptive code, based on the 1995 NBC and the separately bound 'objective' based code, side by side. By the year 2001, the objective based code is intended to be the baseline code, although the choice to use one document or another is intended to be open for some time.

To find out more or get involved:

Contact the NRC in Ottawa at Tel. No.: 613-993-9739 or surf the following website:

http://www.irc.nrc.ca/ccbfc/tgs/obc

The Process in General:

In essence, the process of building design based on performance based codes (regardless of which country the code may be located in) is about providing options. Fire safety in buildings is no longer accomplished by compliance with prescriptive requirements (i.e. max. fire zone of 600m² in the NBCC or 1500 or even 8000 m² in other parts of the Commonwealth) but instead, we have a fuzzy goal of safety for the occupants which has to be redesigned for each building. This, incidentally, may prove to be quite a challenge for our enforcement community, particularly in lieu of current budget constraints, which results in more onus being levied against the design team, who will no doubt attempt to shift more responsibility and liability to others.

Just how we reach these fire safety objectives or goals is based upon the choices given in the code development process.

The New Required Trade in Building Construction

By switching to a totally different code, regardless of whether it may be 'easier' or 'more difficult' to interpret, the growing trade of the 'FPE's', or fire protection engineers certainly stands ready to add a bit of cost to the building project and guide the remainder of the construction team through the maze of code compliance, or code intent compliance. Like a good accountant, who has to provide more tax savings than his fees, wherever possible, the FPE will have to provide good value for the money also, such as to save more money than his cost, either in actual construction costs or in potential loss or litigation costs. More and more, registered fire protection engineers have been used in recent years to underwrite fire safety designs and affix their engineer's stamp to all matter of drawings and specifications. Even if hitherto architectural firms may have done without such expert fire protection consultants, there is a good likelihood of growth in the consulting market segment now owned by registered fire protection engineers. This is particularly the case, when the new tool of 'fire modelling' becomes more popular. Who else should run this program, other than an experienced fire protection engineer?

One of the Tools: Fire Modelling

Internationally, there is a growing number of computer software programs, which aim to predict what fire will do. In order to predict the natural phenomenon of fire, one has to have an idea of the fuel loading in each room, how much fuel each of the furnishings or room contents will produce and how quickly flame and smoke will be produced. The current trend is to express this in the form of energy, Watts. If we were to evaluate our residences, presumably in a high-rise residential building, we would have to add up all the Watts from each chair, curtain, trim, bed, sofa, permanent and transient combustibles. Try not to move your furniture around to avoid changes in the calculation. We then come up with the total energy count and predict what the fire growth, duration and smoke spread will be and then look at how to contain and extinguish the fire. In New Zealand (the first country to switch to a performance based building code), 'experts' are going so far as to take the time temperature curves produced on the screen and then offer savings in construction costs by attempting to predict how established systems (i.e. a spray fireproofing system on a steel beam) would react under a lesser curve. The hoped for result might be that one can shave off 5mm of the thickness of spray fireproofing required. This may then result in cost savings - provided you don't change the fuel loading beyond the design limit or that perhaps the resulting fire may act differently than on the screen. Those differences may then absorb the cost savings in the potentially ensuing litigation.

Strike 1 against Fire Modelling

In a recently much publicised fire at the Chunnel railway tunnel, which connects England with continental Europe, it was discovered, that the fire acted quite differently than what was previously predicted with a computer based fire modelling program. In fact, the fire safety design of the tunnel had heavily relied upon the predicted modelling results. During the construction phase, substantial savings were realised, since certain fire doors on the trains and fireproofing of the tunnel's inner roof were omitted. However, when a train entered the tunnel with a 'lorry' whose load was on fire, halfway into the tunnel, the train had to stop. The fire caused significant damage, reducing the concrete lining in the undersea tunnel to a thickness of 50mm (2"). This was certainly not supposed to happen according to the model on the screen. Instead off adding fire barriers on the trains and fireproofing the tunnel lining, however, the expected result is that more regulations will be written requiring combustibility maxima for payloads. This may be difficult to enforce as not every 'lorry' and its specific load can be expected to be checked against the manifest.

Strike 2 against Fire Modelling 

(These Statements have since been emphatically renounced by the contact cited. The Original Article remains here though. The statements are based on written correspondence, without grammatical corrections for the purposes of authenticity.)

The international fire modelling guru, Professor Dr. Matti Kokkala, of VTT in Finland has, on behalf of the International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB, The Netherlands), commissioned a review of probabilistic fire models, given each submitter the same parameters for designing a certain building in accordance with the local prescriptive code as well as a performance based approach, including fire modelling as a tool. Dr. Kokkala stated that the results are not yet compiled. Nonetheless, what is known so far has varied all over the map. In fact, two people operating the same program, given the same design parameters can come up with widely different results. I asked Dr. Kokkala the following questions:

Question: "Is this study now complete? What were the results?"

Dr. Kokkala's answer: "Unfortunately, not even the first phase has been completed. The plan is now to get a report for discussion at the CIB W14 working meeting in August. AN additional task for people to calculate has been distributed recently (see the CIB W14 Home Page at http://www.vtt.fi/rte/firetech/cibw14/)"

Question: "What faith do you now personally have in the reliance upon fire modelling as a primary tool in building fire safety design?"

Dr. Kokkala's answer: "Tough question and I cannot really quantify the faith. The models are extremely useful and reliable in the hands of competent people but useless or even dangerous if used by people with poor knowledge about fire and fire models.

We are at the moment in one research project trying to create an independent verification document for CFAST in order to states its limits of applicability, but I am not at all sure if we can get it done. For the use on the field, quantitative limits of use or estimates of the accuracy of the results should be given, but the developers nor the researchers using the models are reluctant to give such estimates."

Dr. Kokkala recently presented an opinion paper at a conference entitled 'Fire Safety Design of Buildings and Fire Safety Engineering, 19-20 August 1996 in Oslo, Norway. This document is available from the author. Although this shows promise for the future, the 6 page text underlines Dr. Kokkala's statement in September 1996 in Ottawa, as well as his current opinion that we are far from any reliability in the current use of fire modelling and performance based codes, as there are too many variables, the biggest one being the human factor. As such, it is my opinion that the speed to integrate performance based building codes in Canada is highly risky and premature, particularly considering that our much touted national software program ("FireCam") has not been submitted to CIB for peer review. In fact, prior to the Ottawa conference, our NRC's chief FireCam developer stated that he had yet to visit or spend any serious time on a construction site. NRC has stated very clearly that industry input is required to enhance both the code revision as well as the development of FireCam. Given human nature however, and the typical response to requests for volunteer work without direct payback, there has not been a broad response to Ottawa from the fire protection community, which may seek to maintain fire protection regulations stringent. The breakneck pace to switch from a proven code to an uncertainty is, therefore not based on sound fire safety judgement, but other factors, in my view.

The Performance-based Fire Safety Design Baseline

Those familiar with civil or structural engineering are aware of 'solid state equations'. In other words, we look at how much a floor weighs, what weight will be added on during the life of the building, then calculate how much our design can hold up, add a safety factor and can, therefore, determine the structural requirements in terms of steel, concrete or other means to design our building. FPE's are attempting to duplicate this process of the solid state equation in fire safety design. The difference between the 2 disciplines is experience. The civil engineer's units add up. Fire protection on the other hand is lacking the data and reliability and predictability to duplicate this process. It is not impossible to accomplish such designs by equation. At the present time, and for the foreseeable future, however, there is insufficient data and insufficient experience to make it work in fire protection.

Who is pushing for Performance Baselines and why?

The movement for this concept is international in scope. In my experience, in each case, the driving force behind conversions from existing regulation to performance baselines is money. Who stands to gain? Those who will obtain more work from it, such as fire protection engineers. Others who see themselves gaining through the switch, presuming that construction costs will fall are developers, owners and general contractors, whereby the GC's hope to build more buildings. Owners and developers hope to build where before they may not have been able to build, or they may be able to build larger, more elaborate facilities than they could otherwise afford - all on the premise of lower costs. Indicative of this is development and the motives therein is the appointment of the past president of the Home Builder's Association, having been named chair of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC), a function of the NRC, overseeing both the Fire Code and the Building Code.

In most recent history, an example of performance based risk assessments being used to save money is the Thermo-Lag controversy still raging in the US nuclear industry. In essence, combustible fire barriers were sold to a large number of US nuclear generating stations to serve as insulative barriers around cable trays and conduit in order to facilitate safe shutdown of the reactors during a fire. In a widely publicised case, the president of the testing institute which provided fire testing services to the manufacturer of Thermo-Lag pleaded guilty for falsifying test reports and was fined. The manufacturer and its owner were acquitted of wrongdoing but have now been fined $900,000.00 by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) for wrongdoing in the promotion of this product. The manufacturer may also face further legal action if the USNRC is successful in collecting the fine. So what of all the plants that now have this material installed? The USNRC (you can reach the USNRC via their website at www.nrc.gov), knowing that the material does not provide the required fire-resistance, and in fact can add to fuel contribution, is requiring that plants remedy the problem either by providing a replacement or an overlay solution over top of the existing Thermo-lag product. What then is one of the foremost tools to use to reduce the cost impact of such an expensive exercise? Performance-based risk assessment - instead of compliance with existing regulations. The USNRC has come under much public and Congressional scrutiny of late, among other things, for consideration of this approach.

See the definition of the term: 'Skuzzbucket'.

What are the Sales Pitches for Performance-Based Codes and Fire Modelling?

Sales Pitch #1: 

We will make your buildings cheaper!

Disguised by: We give you choices and our modelling program can tell you which is cheaper.

Questionable because: With rising litigation costs and more publicised fires in recent years, the baseline of performance based codes and fire modelling has become so simple to attack and defeat on technical merit that the combined impact of insurance and possible litigation costs, in case of claims can be expected to offset any token savings afforded by the new approach. Apart from that, the added costs associated with hiring registered fire protection engineers even on smaller projects must still be factored in.

Also questionable because: If the fire model comes up with a different time/temperature curve than is dictated by CAN4-S101 or ASTM E119, etc., further fire testing may be required for different buildings, particularly with the use some furnishings. We may either be more or less stringent. Who will fund such testing, and what if someone moves the furniture, or the boxes, or the chemicals in that room? Who will keep up to date and recalculate for each room how much fireproofing should be on that beam or how much caulking in the hole, etc., etc. Who will believe the academics that have never run system fire testing that a 15% variation in the curve will mean 15% difference in the required insulation around a structural steel element?

Sales Pitch #2:

Your building will be safer!

Disguised by: We are still unsure of the intent of the current code. We will really know our intent with the new performance-based code and how to achieve this intent.

Questionable because: There are far too many skeletons in too many closets in building construction. Most of us know it. Poly Anna does not live in a Canadian building and if she did, she had nothing to do with the construction of it. If we base our design and models (as was the case in the presentations in Ottawa) on the idea, and seriously expect, that a 1 hour rated wall system will really and always last 1 hour in an actual building fire, we are certainly fooling ourselves. There is a large human factor to consider not only in the site installation of systems but also in manufacturing, design and even fire testing. It is for this reason that round robin evaluations of identical products tested to the same method in different laboratories got different results. As another example, there is currently sufficient information on hand to seriously challenge the Standards Council of Canada accreditation of one of the laboratories accredited for certification purposes. Suppose the accreditation of such a laboratory were revoked and the certification listings directory they publish were to be investigated. This would instantly create a documentation vacuum for approximately 70% of Part 3 buildings in Canada that have been constructed in the past 20 years. When ratings are viewed as absolutes, as they often are in modelling, lethal mistakes can occur, meaning there is no guarantee that buildings are safer when designed to performance-based building codes, than their prescriptive based alternatives.

Sales Pitch #3: 

Performance-based codes will make life simpler!

Disguised by: The true meaning will be written down, not how to achieve it.

Questionable because: Authorities having jurisdiction and many others are having a difficult enough time interpreting or understanding the current code, which is quite simple (i.e. fire zone maximum size: 600 m². Easy - takes a ruler and basic math to calculate compliance.) Giving everyone a plethora of options, to accomplish a fuzzy goal of fire safety does not make things simpler - it makes the whole process more complex because the rules change for each building.

Who stands to lose by prematurely switching to Performance Based Codes?

Based on the uncertainty involved with performance based codes and fire modelling, I suggest that a lowered standard of fire protection in Canadian construction will be to the detriment of potential fire victims. If the driving force is cost savings (disguised in a veil of technical arguments), particularly in an environment of tighter budgets for municipalities to enforce different scenarios in each building, as opposed to one code, building occupants of all types will be at greater risk. Building occupants stand to lose.

In New Zealand, presenters at the Ottawa conference lectured, compartmentalisation suffered, in favour of sprinklers. Apparently, if buildings are sprinklered, fire zoning, spray fireproofing, fireproofing by means of boards, fire dampers, fire doors, fire-resistance rated glazing, firestopping of penetrations and joints all play a much lesser role. Despite the rhetoric of passive versus active fire protection industries, experts on both sides agreed on a great discomfort with such a radical approach. Elaborately sprinklered tents without any barriers are certainly not the answer. Passive and active systems work in unison to provide fire safety.

What is the real Problem in Fire Protection?

I believe the whole debate for or against performance baselines and fire modelling versus prescriptive baselines is missing the boat. The real issue here is that regardless of what methods were used to design a fire safety system comprised of active and passive components, is that the entire construction process as well as the commissioning and turn-over to building maintenance staff is starved of the essential communication required to meet the overall objective. Whether a fire door has a 1 hour or two hour rating, is likely irrelevant, when the occupants of the building wedge it open (fusible rubber doorstop) and run a rug through. If the sprinkler head spacing is laid out for a certain occupancy, which then changes as combustibles are suddenly stored to the rafters underneath them, requiring denser head spacing, the whole design is suddenly compromised. If firestops are re-entered and not properly re-sealed, the whole wall rating could be zero. In my view, this information vacuum, or black hole syndrome, exists within the construction industry, which consists of highly segmented 'sub-industries' (i.e. the door and hardware industry, the concrete industry, regulators, specwriters, lawyers, etc.) which tend to have little knowledge of each other and how they can indirectly yet strongly affect one another. Switching codes and approaches does absolutely nothing to solve these real problems. They are what might be termed as 'work therapy'. The focus is blatantly off the problem. I believe that on the present course of adopting performance based codes, we may be merely adding problems, as opposed to solving any of the existing ones. Recent fire history has proven this and will likely continue to do so - perhaps more so than ever once the 2001 NBCC becomes law through the provinces - particularly if the present course remains unopposed or unchallenged and corrected by industry, which is rather unlikely.

Update to the last part (the real problem) (06 + 07/2001):

There is nothing but reality in that, which I have written above. And here is some more ugly truth, the kind which can be career ending for uttering it out loud. With few exceptions, it is absolutely permissible to violate Canadian fire codes and building codes (not officially or according to the law, but in practice). By that, I mean the provincially adopted versions as well the those cases in our country, where the federal or National Building Code/National Fire Codes apply. It is politically expedient to look the other way. It is not a sexy enough issue for the press and thus it falls on deaf ears with politicians of all Canadian political parties, resulting in nauseating lipservice, which would insult the intelligence of a pre-schooler. There is ample evidence for this right on this website, among others. For the most part, the codes are enforced by municipalities, who, in theory, represent the respective provinces. But their pay cheques come from the municipalities. Their budgets must be approved by the municipalities - and this is where politics thwart the best efforts of the fire prevention officer as well as the building inspector, who are often overworked and underfunded. If an owner (i.e. local employer, i.e. local juice) is being leaned on too hard by municipal inspectors, he can call a counsellor to get relief. Often it does not even have to go that far. Municipal fire prevention officers and building inspectors know when they must look the other way in order to keep their jobs. Sure, they can make people buy detectors and re-charge fire extinguishers. These are small expenditures (although even these can be the cause of much - and in some cases extraordinary~ - bellyaching), which no one should get excessively bent out of shape over. But mention that an entire building has no fire protection because of missing firestops or inoperable spray fireproofing, or the fire separations don't reach the ceiling above, and it's a non-starter. Even if exposed with photographic documentation, absolutely lethal, fiscal and moral suicide in the event of tragic fire losses, exemptions will be found because when such large code issues are found, it can often come down to very simple economics. "Make me correct this and I'll close the doors." Kiss the jobs goodbye, forget the institution or what have you. Cannot do it - no money. This universal truth applies in Canada to both the public and private sectors, regardless of the potential losses, human or otherwise in the event of a fire in such a deficient facility. And consequently, exemptions from the code will be made. So what it really comes down to, is a gamble. Many building owners will not delve far enough into such decisions to make particularly educated choices. But essentially, they accept full liability in the event of fire losses and the consequential claims. That, is what is really going on. In the face of this reality, discussions about how to write the code are plain ridiculous, because they completely miss the mark. Worse, they lend further fuel to the endless excuses already pervading the trade to justify more savings, at the peril of safety. The disgusting part is the extent to which the condition is known and tolerated (though rarely discussed in earnest), while those who do so spend an extraordinary amount of time discussing irrelevancies, with mutual congratulations.

Now, if you've dug all skeletons out of your building's fire protection closet (Read this entire site with all the links and you'll know what I mean.), patched your firestops and your fireproofing, instructed your staff not to prop open fire doors and run rugs through and are still sworn to use fire modelling, actually I'd suggest clergy, or any of the healing arts, or perhaps witchcraft, (whatever gets you through the night) but nonetheless, either hire this man for the job or at least read what North America's number one modelling guru and allround nice guy Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas (http://www.doctorfire.com/profess.html) has to say about making sure that whoever you hire to model a fire in your building has some idea that he or she knows what to do.

Click here: http://www.doctorfire.com/mod_expt.html to read about the necessary qualifications to model fires!

References:

Organisations (mentioned herein, whose official party line is collectively, whole-heartedly and emphatically in disagreement with this article)

CIB: International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation, The Netherlands

http://www.vtt.fi/rte/firetech/cibw14/

IRC: Institute for Research in Construction, a part of the NRCC

http://www.nrc.ca/irc/irccontents.html

NFPA: National Fire Protection Association, Boston, MA http://www.nfpa.org

NRC(C): National Research Council, Canada http://www.nrc.ca/corporate/english/index.html

SFPE: Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston, MA http://www.sfpe.org/

USNRC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD http://www.nrc.gov

VTT: VTT Building Technology, Espoo, Finland http://www.vtt.fi/rte/firetech/indexe.html

Literature: 

Programme and Abstracts, International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, 24-26 September 1996, Ottawa, ON

NFPA Journal, March/April1997, Article entitled: "Fire in the Chunnel!", by Ed Comeau and Alisa Wolf

Construction Innovation Newsletter by NRCC, Vol. 2, No. 3, Winter 1997, Article entitled: "Clemmensen new chair of Codes Commission"

Firestop Site

Main Site

Glossary

Comment

Main Site

Firestop Site

Code Evaluations AVAILABLE!

Glossary of Fire Protection Terms

3M Fire Barriers

Vectorising Drawings and Maps; Paper to CAD

Circuit Integrity Fireproofing

Bounding

Code Req's for Firestops

Essay on Performance Based Codes

Master Spec. Section 07840 Firestopping

Related Sections to 07840

Penetration Seal Drawings

Building Joint Drawings 1

Building Joint Drawings 2

Building Joint Drawings 3

History of Firestops in North America

Warnock Hersey Experience

Firestop Trade Jurisdiction

Achim Hering Bio

Man Made Mineral Fibres

Fire Protection Industry Links

Firestop Products and Equipment

Firestop Mortar

Firestop Silicone Foam

Intumescent Products

Endothermic Products

Insulation Products

Caulking & Paint Firestops

Firestop Pillows

Firestop Devices

Firestop Slide Show 1 of 10 Basics

Firestop Slide Show 2 of 10 Code

Firestop Slide Show 3 of 10 No Seal

Firestop Slide Show 4 of 10 Deemed-to-comply

Firestop Slide Show 5 of 10 Misinstalled

Firestop Slide Show 6 of 10 Re-entered

Firestop Slide Show 7 of 10 Faulty Spec.

Firestop Slide Show 8 of 10 Proper Firestops

Firestop Slide Show 9 of 10 Test

Firestop Slide Show 10 of 10 Smoke and Trays

Sample Firestop Listing

Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning; Boiling-Hot Pressure Washing

ULC           UL

T O S

(Theory of Survival)

DIBt

TU Braunschweig iBMB

CONTACT

1