Conformity – are you getting what you want?

Richard Adams, Fire Retardants Manager for Arch Timber Protection Ltd, provides an in-depth view of the timber frame building industry and its relationship to fire and flame

AN ARCHITECT, engineer or specifier is commissioned by a client to provide an end product to meet his requirements and expects this to conform to the relevant specifications and approvals. In the case of fire retardants which are specified for use in public buildings and transport you are playing with people’s lives.

The individual company/practice commissioned to provide the service is reliant on the individual companies they approach to assist, advise, and provide products or treatments to meet the criteria needed to meet the specification. The companies providing advice must also be professional in their approach to the problems put before them and not mislead or misdirect the specifier. To this day architects and specifiers are misled or advised incorrectly on the use of fire retardant treatments and the many instances mentioned will show how the specifier end user is deceived.

As we all know timber burns; the material has been used for thousands of years to start fires but this can be addressed. Regulations permit the use of timber-based products in construction and areas of the rail industry but the material must meet the strict requirements laid down. At the end of the day are these requirements being met and how do we ensure these are being met.

In 1982 there were seven companies promoting impregnation salt-based fire retardant treatments in the UK for use in various market areas. These treatments had been around since the early 1900s and the problems and limitations associated with the treatments were accepted. They were corrosive to all metals, their hygroscopic nature leading to the loss of the fire performance and appearance was generally overlooked.

The arrival of the new generation fire retardant treatments in the late 70s early 80s (the first impregnated chemical based formulations) provided a challenge to these existing treatments, providing not just an initial treatment but one for life with no maintenance and eliminating the problems associated with previous treatments. In contrast, Salt based treatment had always been regarded as offering ‘initial compliance’ and therefore needed to be maintained. As a company we made rapid progress promoting the new generation treatments and this saw the demise of a couple of the existing companies. This was my first insight into how customer and end users were being cheated.

We approached the receivers for two of the companies with a view to purchasing items of their equipment; we were informed by one that the treatment vessel hadn’t beenused for two years as it was cracked. The adjoining company who had tried to weld the vessel stated that ‘for the last couple of years they had sprayed something onto the packs, left it in the sun to dry and company’s picked it up a few days later. The second company’s vessel had no pressure pumps
and the door didn’t fit. Both companies had continued to offer treated material to the various sectors, branded as fire retardant treated and meeting Class 1 or Class 0 in terms of fire performance.

The Ministry of Defence used large quantities of treated timber and plywood; they have an approved list of suppliers. To be included on the list, your treatments have to be fully tested and approved by independent bodies and therefore you expect total conformity in the material being supplied.

This is not always the case; a company had material fire treated and assumed conformity. The end user questioned the appearance/ state of the material supplied as it looked untreated but branded as treated. Part of the consignment was used aboard a submarine where scheduling for the refurbishment was tight and the treated material used as it was readily available. Retrospectively, a sample was sent for testing and the results confirmed that the supplied material was in fact untreated.

The treatment company was asked to attend meeting to answer the claims of nonconformity
and the of the material as treated. The representative stated ‘the material must have slipped through without being treated’. As to why the boards were this is done following treatment and kilning the stamp is done with a water soluble they stated

‘we must have thought it was treated’. In this instance untreated materials were used in an
area the Ministry of Defence both expected and required fire treated material.

In the early days of the introduction of the chemical formulation the company mentioned was taken on as a licensee, but due to malpractice this was terminated after approximately six months. Materials supplied to a company commissioned to provide units for London Underground needed to be treated using the new formulation which was approved due to the low smoke production in a fire situation, a criteria that was needed following the Kings Cross fire. The treatment company supplied their cheaper formulation, charging the manufacturer for the more expensive process with the material being branded as the more expensive treatment. London Underground was informed, the material was removed and replaced and the treatments company’s licensees agreement was terminated immediately.

Formulations are designed for certain end uses and when used correctly in these areas should perform as expected. Providing or specifier prepares correct the material should conformity. Contractors can easily be led and availability without looking at the implications or which can occur later migrate or performance. Following the demise of all the original salt based treatment companies we now handle the only such product still available. The treated material is recommended for the exhibition and temporary use markets areas, not permanent construction. Plywood treated using the salt type process is the only fire retardant material held by stockists and they persist is supplying such material to the construction industry ignoring the consequences and problems. They offer the material as a ‘cheaper option’ without taking into account the problems associated with the product and the possibility of nonconformity to a specification.

The areas of use for fire retardant products have increased due to changes in regulations and the improvement of the types of treatments available, eliminating the problems associated with treatments. Over the last few years there has been a growing trend for architects to use timber as external cladding, leaving the material unprotected and to weather naturally. There is a treatment available for such situations and if architects specify the correct treatment, why are we faced with problems of the wrong treatment being used and the need for a coating once the problems have occurred? In such situations the contractor has been advised incorrectly and the supplier of the treated material has taken the order because ‘their price is cheaper’. Additional work is false economy.

Surface applied treatments have always been questioned due to the problems associated with the application providing an acceptable finish for architects etc. We recommend our own system for in-situ situations or materials that are unsuitable for impregnation. Surface applied systems are moisture sensitive and therefore not recommended for external use, but contractors disastrous results.

Correct application is sometimes questionable; having been asked to quote for 1000m2, why
do we receive an order for 500m2? Why do we receive calls from applicators for a credit on materials they have left over? The materials supplied are based on the correct loadings/film thickness to provide the required level of fire performance. If applied correctly there should be little or no waste.

Conformity is essential; ensure you meet the requirements and specification by using the professionals.All the treatments we promote are fully tested at great expense by independent bodies and are guaranteed to provide compliance.