Fire protection on external wall

[Czar]

Hiya, first post, probably loads more to come, as I'm new to passive fire protection, and it seems to be a growing concern, which is quite understandable, and even though I've been on the C17 Introduction To PFP course, I'm still brand new, and in some areas, unsure.

The query I have is, there was a water pipe that exited an external wall (On the inside its block, outside sheet metal, insulation wise, I do not know if its rockwool or other), anyway I was asked to hide the expanding foam which was used to fill the gap around the pipe. Now, the building is a standalone one room building, none residential, a few bits of electrical equipment inside, and a large diesel generator with a 100ltr diesel tank next to it. The building is protected by a sprinkler system, it has a vent on one wall, which is always open.

Now, I was asked to hide the expanding foam, no specs were given, just cover it with a board. So, I personally couldnt see nothing wrong with using 3/4 plywood as I had a sheet the perfect size, and bare in mind, this isnt about cost... So I cut the board around the pipe, fixed it to the block work, then sealed around it and the gap around the pipe with, as it happens, fire retardant sealant.

Someone comes along, looks, and has a bit of a whinge that I've used ply, but like I said, no specs were given, and I personally couldnt see what was wrong considering many factors I mentioned above.

What I want to know is, is it adequate? Should have I used proper fire rated materials like fire batt, I know its a daft question because obviously to be 100%, I should of, but then, I personally couldnt see the issue, its a small building, protected by a sprinkler system, smoke and cinders WILL escape through the vent if something did break out.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, like I said, I'm new to this, I'd like to learn in, the C17 Intro to PFP only showed so much, and mostly that was internal residential stuff.

Kind regards 

[AnthonyB]

A one room building with no relevant persons to protect most of the time, where the service penetration is to the outside and would safely vent in the event of fire?

Unless there is an adjacent building or risk that would be affected by improper fire stopping in this case, which sounds extremely unlikely, then from a fire safety point of view you could fill it with chewing gum for all the difference it makes....

[Czar]

See, thats exactly what I thought, I was looking at it today again, just to see if I missed anything, and... No, I didnt, I reckon the closest sprinkler bulb (Without measuring) was about 2m max, so, if the sprinkler goes, that board is going to be constantly cooled and dampened.

I havent seen him yet, I wont till Wednesday,  but honestly, I'm really intrigued by his point of view if I'm honest, because whatever his logic is... I cannot see it!

Thanks Anthony, I appreciate the reply! ?

Kind regards

[Czar]

Further onto the subject, which I should of noted, the room in question is a fire pump room that feeds sprinklers, now, he says the pump room should be fire rated to 2 hours unsprinkled, and 1 hour sprinkled (it's sprinkled), regardless if its standalone or not.

I never knew this reg about pump houses, but reading more on the topic, I cannot really get anymore info on it, some of the stuff I'm reading has the pump house located within the building... Which, you would take for granted any partition walls should be fire protected, regardless.

I just cannot seem to find, as an example, the fire rating recommendations of a pump house, say, of a building who's pump house is way over the other side of a car park or something, if you get me.

So, is that it, pump houses, regardless where they are, or whats around them, one to two hours fire rating as standard?

Kind regards

 

[Tom Sutton]

I would ask him what guidance requires this and chapter and verse. If you get an answer lets know.

[AnthonyB]

Sounds like a 'code hugger' quoting insurance requirements regardless of the real world, the sort that gives fire safety and H&S a bad name - from a risk assessment and life safety/legal compliance point of view it's not required.