Achieving Passive Fire Compliance in Multi-Residential Developments

A look at the key barriers to achieving compliant fire ratings on large buildings — particularly high-rise apartments — in today’s construction climate and an alternative method to overcome these.

In recent years the residential construction sector has seen continued growth. This growth has had widespread repercussions that include both significant innovation and new challenges. As complex construction materials and technologies witness growing use, residents of multi-residential developments are demanding more services within their living space. Coupled with strong developer interest in increasing the let table area, the question of fire compliance has become increasingly complex.

As a result, the industry now more closely scrutinizes trades and sub trades, many of which are commonly falling short of compliance requirements relating to the fire rating of multi-residential apartments. This in turn extends deadlines and significantly increases project costs.

Throughout the industry, there is growing awareness of the risk of incorrect or inadequate fire separation, and builders and trades are accordingly growing more responsible and seeking innovative, effective and reliable solutions for passive fire protection.

Let’s explore the key barriers to achieving compliant fire ratings on large buildings — particularly high-rise apartments — in today’s construction climate and look at an alternative method to overcome these.

Understanding the problem

In the past, the major construction trades (being electrical, air conditioning, plumbing, data, fire, and internet) often applied their own passive fire protection after installing their services.

Whilst many builders use a Passive Specialist Applicator (a specialist trade that fire rates other trades’ penetrations) in the interests of costs and externalizing risks, it’s also common for many sub trades to be accountable for the passive fire rating of their own work. This may provide a perceived shift of responsibility away from the builder, but it also poses a significant risk in terms of ensuring the adequacy of fire rating. ‘Approved’ systems can fail due to incorrect product specification or failure by the installer to follow strict installation guidelines.

Installation error is a major threat to passive fire protection since it is difficult to monitor the work methods of every sub trade. Depending on the varying skills levels of each installer, there is always a possibility that the sub trade will misinterpret installation guidelines, particularly where the fire rating system is complex or unfamiliar. Difficult installation contexts are becoming increasingly common, particularly in high-density apartments where space above the ceiling is at a premium.

As a consequence of developers seeking to maximize let table area, the ceiling space height in multi-residential developments is often decreasing, while the complexity of technical services into each apartment is increasing — thereby further complicating the whole fire stopping challenge. Without destructive inspections, it’s difficult to identify a passive detail after installation as physical aspects are not visible.

In addition to physical complications, the number of materials that must be protected within the tight confines of today’s multi-residential apartments is increasing. Residents now expect more services than ever in their living spaces, many of which use multiple cables and pipes, and trades must now engage with the latest in pipe material innovation and the myriad of plastics used for different pipe applications (such as PEX, PEX-AL, PP, PP-R, HDPE, uPVC, cPVC, and more) as well as mechanical bundles that include pair coil, cables, and lagged or unlagged metal pipes.

When it comes to cable types, the possibilities feel endless, and the ‘Standard Configuration’ becomes hard to work to when all the possible variables, sizes and quantities are considered.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of fire rating technology available does little to simplify the product selection process, and the impracticality of understanding all tested systems on the market makes it difficult correctly install one hundred percent of the time.