1

2

European Group of Organisations for Fire testing,

Inspection and Certification

www.egolf.org.uk

EGOLF TC2 Fire resistance

Draft report of the EGOLF TC2 meeting held on 15 October 2008, Sofia

1 / Opening of meeting
Mr Nikolov, director of the Bulgarian Fire Safety and Rescue organisation welcomed EGOLF delegates to Sofia and wished them a successful meeting.
2 / Approval of the agenda – N484rev1
This was agreed with updates to TG discussions noted.
3 / Approval of the report of the last meeting – N472
The report of the previous meeting held on 3 April 2008 was approved.
4 / Matter arising
Test method for cavity barriers – Mr Rowan had received further comments from EOTA and the final text had been sent to EOTA. This would now be circulated to TC2 for a 4 week comment period after which it would be published as an EGOLF Agreement. It would also be submitted to CEN/TC127 for consideration as an EN.
action Secretary
ER on position of free edge (8.2c) - This has been approved and uploaded as ER40 in July.
5 / Work in CEN/TC127 on fire resistance test methods – N492
The Secretary introduced document N492 which listed the status of the current standards, published and in preparation in TC127. She explained that after a standard had been published for five years it had to be reviewed to see if any changes were needed. The options then available would be
-  confirmed (still ok, no changes needed)
-  amended, small changes made
-  revised, major changes made and a new edition prepared.
6 / Actions agreed on Helpdesk items in 2007 & 2008, N493
This document gave relevant extracts from minutes of meetings relating to discussions on Helpdesk items. Members agreed this was a useful document and asked for the following to also be included:
-  reference of the relevant test method
-  reference to the meeting date when the item was discussed
-  the concluding decision on the topic
action: Secretary
- 
7 / Fire resistance round robin, N494
A Task Group had been further discussing this since the last meeting and the Chairman introduced document N494 which summarised the current position where the TG was proposing to follow ISO 5725 and use a gypsum plasterboard test specimen, not the original aperture proposal. Details of the gypsum plasterboard proposal were given in N485 version 2. It was noted that accreditation bodies asked labs to follow ISO 5725 which required a round robin test specimen to be representative of what was normally tested. It was considered it would be useful to discuss the EGOLF approach to round robins with EA, in the discussions currently underway (as reported to TC4), but that this should not delay any actions in TC2. After a detailed discussion of the topic the proposal from the TG was accepted and planning the round robin would proceed.
action Chairman
8 / TC2 workshop on penetration seals, N491
This workshop had been organised to enable participants to understand the changes which would be introduced into the revision of EN 1366-3. Mr Haselmair, convener of the responsible CEN TC127 WG, gave a detailed explanation of these changes in N491. Mr Blume summarised the main discussion items and he would submit a report for circulation to TC2.
action Mr Blume
Some participants had raised questions in the workshops which they had been asked to follow up with Helpdesk items, but none had been submitted.
9 / Revision of EN 81-58 Lift landing doors
Following the successful earlier joint EGOLF / ELA workshop it had been agreed that experts from the two organisations should prepare a revision of the test method for submission to CEN/TC10. This group had met on 30 September and Prof Vandevelde, who had convened this group, would provide a report for the information of TC2. When all possible changes had been identified a text, indicating these changes, would be circulated to TC2 for any further comments. This could then be processed for submission to CEN/TC10. The Chairman urged those members which has a specific interest in this topic to contribute to the discussions in CEN/TC10.
action members, Prof Vandevelde
Prof Vandevelde concluded by saying that the experts had agreed that a subsequent task would be to prepare guidance on extended application.
A document had been prepared by ELA summarising the status of implementation of EN 81-58. This would be circulated to TC2 for experts to check if the information was still up to date.
action Secretary
10 / Actions following discussions in workshop and TG on ducts and dampers
The Chairman had agreed to incorporate previous workshop discussions on ducts into draft Recommendations. The first item, N498, relating to EN 1366-1 would be discussed later in a TG. For the second item relating to EN 1366-8, the report of the latest CEN group was still awaited. After which a document would be prepared.
action Chairman
11
11.1
11.1.1
11.1.2
11.1.3
11.1.4
11.1.5
11.1.6
11.1.7
11.2
11.2.1
11.2.2
11.2.3
11.2.4
11.2.5 / TG discussions
The meeting then broke for detailed discussions in TGs which were reported as follows:
TG1 – convener A Drustrup
Glazed screens, N455
testing multiple elements – continued discussion from last meeting (see N458 item 8.1.2)
TG decisions:
Document N455 is a suggestion to change to the field of direct application for EN1364-1 and EN1634-1. It was agreed to keep the suggested changes from last meeting to EN1364-1 and to delete the suggested change for EN1634-1.
The final document is issued as an EGOLF Recommendation XXX to be sent to the CEN Task group working with the revision of EN 1364-1.
action: A Drustrup
Uniform loading in fire tests, N470
It was proposed that for each type of test specimen a recommended minimum number of loading points should be given. A draft would be prepared by DBI for agreement at the next meeting as a Technical Recommendation.
At the meeting in 2008 Spring meeting in Metz document N470, was discussed and the following changes was agreed.
It was suggested that the minimum number of line loads should be 2 and that each load should be spitted in minimum 2 beams. A new revised version of the document with the suggested changes will be drafted and approved at the next meeting.
The comments from the Metz meeting were implemented and the document was discussed again. There were many comments/questions to the revised document and the general impression was that it was not suited for an EGOLF Recommendation. It was decided not to go any further with the document. N470 will not be discussed at further meetings unless requested by the members.
action: none
Fire protection materials, Helpdesk 2008-05, N483rev
Helpdesk 2008-05 asked for any information about tensile bond strength measurements in EGOLF Standard Method 5 – Measurement of bonding properties of fire protection material. Question raised due to falling of fire protection mortar from tunnel concrete soffit in Ljubljana
According to EA5 Annex 2 the equation for tensile bond strength of 40 mm thick fire protection material of density 800 kg/m3 should be approx. 1,9 N/mm2. This value seems to be 10 times greater than expected tensile strength of commonly used vermiculite rendering which is approx. 0,2 N/mm2. If we take into account for thickness (m) instead of (mm), the value is 10 times smaller than expected Does any of laboratories has experience with this measurements? Which value is correct?
No comments on the subject were received. It was agreed that ZAG would send in suggestion for the changes of the values of tensile bond strength to be implemented in EA5.
action: ZAG
Instrumentation for temperature measurement, N463, N496
Revision of TR2 ‘Procedures for the choice, use, checking, mounting and replacement of instrumentation used for temperature measurement in fire resistance tests’
This was discussed at the spring 2007 meeting and N463 agreed at the spring 2008 meeting. This was circulated for final comment and approval in August 2008.
Comments to TR2 were submitted by SP, Sweden and University of Liege, Belgium (N496).
In short the comments argue that the calibration procured stated in TR2 4.2 and annex 3 is inaccurate and needless.
Based on the comments it was agreed to delete the calibration procedure in TR2. And only to require that certified thermocouple wire is used and that the thermocouples are visually inspected and evaluated after use.
action: A Drustrup
Partitions, N497
Final approval of ER 000 ‘Positioning of thermocouples when testing partitions’
The EGOLF Recommendation was agreed with the comment that the drawing could be better in illustrating the problem and solution. A new drawing will be produced.
action: A Drustrup
Ducts, Recommendation and Helpdesk 2008-07, N498, N499
Draft EGOLF Recommendation on clarification of test procedures related to EN 1366-1.
Helpdesk 2008-07 ‘positioning of thermocouples near joints when testing to EN 1366-1’
Document N498 was reviewed. The following changes were agreed.
In Chapter 2 Type of floor construction used when testing horizontal ducts
When testing horizontal ducts the type of roof used when strapping the duct, can be chosen freely by the labs (furnace roof, Aerated concrete slaps reinforced on the unexposed side, concrete slabs etc.).
In Chapter 4 Positioning of thermocouples over steel duct joints
At the EGOLF meeting in Borås spring 2007 it was agreed that
The junction was considered a minor hotspot for this type of construction, therefore, no thermocouple should be placed at the junction (or the junction placed away from the measurement area)
Members have argued against this conclusion and therefore the question was rediscussed and the follow was agreed:
Thermocouples shall be placed over steel duct joints. Due to limits in space the junction does not have to be position between 400 mm to 700 mm from the penetration seal.
Helpdesk N499
The helpdesk concerns position of thermocouples near joints. The thermocouples can be positioned directly over the joint or 15 mm from the joint depending on the interpretation of the word coincide.
It was agreed that thermocouples should be placed 15 mm from the joint (case B, on the drawings for N499). The decision was take based on the following.
1.  The word coincide cannot be interpreted as directly above.
2.  EN 1363-1, 9.1.2.3 page 20 reads: …..When positioning a thermocouple near a discontinuity e.g. between adjacent panels in a wall, the centre of the disc shall not be placed closer than 15 mm to the discontinuity.
3.  In practical all other resistance to fire standards thermocouples are not placed directly over joint.
The changes to the draft recommendation will be implemented in N498. The decision on N499 will also be added to N498. N498 will be issued as an EGOLF Recommendation.
action: A Drustrup
Applicability of fire protection, N504
Research Fire Safety Institute Ministry of Interior – Bulgaria, Sofia submitted 6 questions related to Applicability of fire protections. The questions were more of general character then of technical matters. Due to lack of experts in the TG1 group, it was decided to find an expert during the TC2 end plenary, and then go through the questions in a separate meeting.
At the TC2 end plenary Prof. Vandevelde from Gent agreed to assist at the separate meeting.
action: separate meeting
TG2 – convener P Coget
Revision of R5 ‘Fire resistance assessments’ N502
Niall Rowan introduced this topic which was raised following concern that the procedure in R5 was too complicated. For example it contained multiple levels of complexity of assessments and multiple levels of skills/competence of assessors and reviewers. This was deemed unnecessary.
However, the discussion widened considerably to include the concept of a ‘European Assessment’. This resulted from concerns that the European system as currently constituted (Test, DIAP, EXAP, Classification) was failing to support the needs of manufacturers, NBs and others mainly because the EXAP standards being developed were:
·  non-existent for some products
·  had an inadequate scope to cover all or most variations of products
·  had procedures/calculations/rules which were unworkable. Some are too lenient, some are too hard. Some are not technically justifiable
·  being developed too slowly for CE marking of products to occur
·  could not keep up with the developments in products
·  were not being developed in a harmonised way
Currently, these are dealt with nationally by some form of national assessment (for which R5 was originally developed). The TG considered that it was desirable to consider the introduction of a ‘European Assessment’ to address the weaknesses above. Such ‘European Assessments’ might include:
·  Expert judgment
·  Peer review as per ETAs
·  A scope of application limiting its application to e.g. a specific building project
The group considered that it was desirable to develop this concept further, but that it was out side the scope of a Task Group and proposed that TC2 plenary and then the EGOLF Executive be informed and asked to consider preparing a proposal. The need for national guidance (revision of R5) could then be reviewed again in light of discussions on European assessments.
post meeting note: This item was also discussed in SH02 (Fire Sector Group) with support for a proposal to be drafted and then considered at the EGF meeting in December.
Thermocouple locations when testing doorsets, Helpdesk 2008-06, N490, N495
The door and side panel should be considered as one specimen and use 360OC criteria around the frame (adjacent to the supporting construction). When testing the composite unit, extra thermocouples may be included at the shared mullion but the max temp critrion is 180 deg C. i.e. situation 1.
Testing curtain walling to 1364-4, Helpdesk 2008-08, N500
The first comment is that seal should be tested to EN 1366-4 as one can only classify from this standard (not the ETAG). Alternatively one could classify the whole curtain wall from a curtain wall test (EN 1364-4) but without movement.
It was suggested that the seal manufacturer tests to EN 1366-4, gets it classified and CE marks product to put it on the market. The manufacturer of the curtain wall then needs to separately satisfy himself that the CE marked seal will work in his curtain wall e.g. by a test to EN 1364-4.