Presentation on theme: "Hilti Corporation, Schaan, FL"— Presentation transcript:
1 Hilti Corporation, Schaan, FL Practical experience with new European fire testing standards and European technical approvalU. Wörsdörfer +H. HaselmairHilti Corporation, Schaan, FL
2 This presentation is given in commemoration of my dear colleague Udo Wörsdörfer who should have given the presentation but died unexpectedly some weeks ago
3 Introduction Limited practical experience: ETAG 018 (FPP) published in 2006 (part 4) and 2007 (part 2 and 3)ENV : EN (intumescent coatings): Formal VoteEN revised (boards, renderings): InquiryETAG 026 (FSSP) published early 2008EN (penetration seals): 09/2004, revision 03/2009EN (linear joint seals): 08/2006EN (curtain wall, part configuration): 06/2007FPP = Fire Protective Products, FSSP = Fire Stopping and Fire Sealing Products
4 How to show compliance for FPP and FSSP in Europe? European routeNational routeApproval testing + AoC procedureETACertificate of ConformityDeclaration of ConformityCE MarkingDepending on national rules:Fire test report (UK, IRL, …)+ national approval of fire test report(ES, FR, PL, …)Approval (DE)FPP = Fire Protective Products, FSSP = Fire Stopping and Fire Sealing Products
5 What is the difference? All regulated properties related European routeNational routeAll regulated properties relatedto the Essential Requirements(CPD) to be assessedDurability, Serviceability3rd party controlMust be accepted throughoutEuropeOnly resistance to fire is assessed *)No 3rd party control *)Accepted in other countries onlywhen mutual agreement in place*) Apart from DE
6 Status of introduction of European Fire Classification 2006 /20102008 / ?2004 /20122007 /20112007unlimitedEuropean classificationPossible in all Member StatesEN Testing in many Member States obligatory for new testsDeadline for validity of national test reports between 2010 and 2012First complete obligation in AT (05/2010)EN + national in parallelEN testing mandatorynot yet decidedtbc
7 Status of obligation - ETA’s /PSJSDraft!Product with ETA must be accepted in allMember StatesETA at present voluntary in most Member StatesOnly with ETA a fire test resultmust be accepted all over EuropeETA includes all regulatoryrequirements not only fireETA voluntaryETA mandatory by law
8 Impact of legal situation for ETA’s European Level:CPDFrom November 2006 on no coexistence period defined for ETAG’s by EC anymoreNational Level:Building RegulationsOnly minimum performance (fire resistance, noise protection etc.) definedETA’s perceived voluntaryNo driving force for ETA’s from legal sideOnly a few ETA’s issued so farHarmonisation de facto stopped!!
9 What is the reason for reluctance of industry to use ETA’s? Market distortionbecause ofDifferences between European and national test resultsLess effort when using only fire test/classification report compared to a full ETA assessment
10 Difference EN – National testing: Steel protection Safety margins unrealistic high for reactive coatings=> not competitive=> Revision of EN and separation in 2 partsHollow sections not covered
11 Difference EN – National testing: Linear joint seals Fire test at joint extension equal to 100% movement capability: movement not considered in national standards => disadvantage when EN testingTest equipment for fire tests including movement not available before spring 2009 –Only 1 laboratory in Europe equipped so farDetailed classification: e.g. EI 30 – H – M25 – B – W 30 to 90 =Linear joint seal with 30 minutes fire resistance, horizontal orientation, movement capability of 25%, with pre-fabricated and on-site made splices for joint widths of 30 to 90 mmSpecial test for curtain wall perimeter seals (EN )
12 Special test standard for curtain wall perimeter joint (EN 1364-4) To be tested together with façade element *)Minimum 3 m joint lengthStrict field of application rules related to use of standard configurationsETAG requires cycling before fire test (no equipment available in Europe so far)*) DIN standard similar to EN
13 Difference EN – National testing: Penetration seals More severe test conditions (e.g. furnace pressure)Strict field of application rules related to use of standard configurations (e.g. maximum cable diameter of 80 mm – although more severe cable configuration)Pipe end configuration as part of classification:e.g. EI 120 U/C: Penetration seal with 90 minutes fire resistance for closed piping systems (test condition: capped outside the furnace)
14 Difference EN 1366-3:2004 and revised version 2009 Furnace Pressure – Specimen location (5.2): simpler approachDistances: no obligation for 200 mm between pipes (6.1)Strut system as modern alternative for standard service support construction introduced, also for pipes ( , Fig. A.8 and E.10)Blank penetration seal necessary for definition of maximum seal size; definition of thermocouple location added (Fig. 3)New definition of standard supporting constructions (7.2)New insulation pad for thermocouples ( ): simpler to install
15 EN 1366-3:2009: Furnace pressure – Specimen location old:new:
16 EN 1366-3:2009: Cable penetration seals – What is new? New CablesNew GroupingSplit depending on Seal SizeSpecial Seal TypesG2C1D2FEBA3A1C2D1C3D3
17 Telecommunication Cable EN :2009: CablesDes.TypeSizeMaterial *)ØA1S5 x 1,5PVC/PVC14A2EPR / POA3XLPE / EVAB1 x 95PVC / PVC21C14 x 9547C261C346E1 x 18527D14 x 18552D280D363FT20x2x0,618G1WPVC / -17G223The new selection of cables for the standard configuration considers all known influencing parameters and is thought to be representative for all cables used in buildings in Europe.cSmall SheathedS = SheathedMedium SheathedW = WireLarge SheathedTelecommunication CableT = Telecommuni-cation cableWires*) Insulation / Sheath
18 EN 1366-3:2009: Standard configuration – Large seals Options"Small""Medium""Large""Cable bundle"„Wires""Conduits"
19 EN 1366-3:2009: Field of application – Cable seals "Small""Medium""Large"Small Cables(A1, A2, A3, B)all Sheathed Cables(includingTelecommunication/ Data Cables)≤ 21 mm ØSmall Cables(A1, A2, A3, B)+Medium Cables(C1, C2, C3, E)all Sheathed Cables(includingTelecommunication/ Data Cables)≤ 50 mm Ø)Small Cables(A1, A2, A3, B)+Medium Cables(C1, C2, C3, E)Large Cables(D1, D2, D3)all Sheathed Cables(includingTelecommunication/ Data Cables)≤ 80 mm Ø)
20 B- or E-cable, depending on seal size EN :2009: Standard configuration – Small sealsProposal for Standard configuration to cover all sheathed cables:+orB- or E-cable, depending on seal sizemaximum seal size minimum seal size
21 EN 1366-3: Pipe penetration seals - New definition of "Insulation" sustainedinterruptedcontinuedCase CSCase CIlocalCase LSCase LI
22 EN 1366-3:2009: Pipe penetration seals Maximum seal size to be determined by testing a blank seal (b or h x l), except for mortar seals and seals made from rigid boards or mineral wool boards with a density of ≥ 150 kg/m3lb or hPipe end configuration U/C (capped outside!) covers all situations => different to pipe end configuration commonly used in the past!
23 EN 1366-3:2009: Plastic pipes - Selection of specimens Determination of “Length Groups" and "Design Groups" (thickness and length of the active component of the pipe closure device is equal for varying device sizes / pipe diameters)The maximum device size per design group is tested in combination with maximum and minimum pipe wall thicknessDesign groups in the middle of the size range may be omitted, if the relevant parameters are located above the connection line (see diagram)
24 EN 1366-3:2009: Plastic pipes - Selection of specimens
25 EN 1366-3:2009: Rules for plastic pipes – Pipe wall thickness The range between the wall thicknesses tested is covered for a particular device sizeThe maximum wall thickness, tested with the largest device, covers all smaller sizes within a "Design-Group"Interpolation allowed for "Design-Groups" not tested (see diagram)Length-Group 1
26 EN 1366-3:2009: Rules for plastic pipes – Pipe end configuration All field of application rules valid for the pipe end configuration testedApplication of test results: see Table.test usingU/UC/UU/CC/CcoversYNY = covered; N = not coveredDifferent to rules in the past!! Capped outside (U/C) normally used in the past! Considerable difference in test results!
27 EN 1366-3:2009: Rules for plastic pipes – Pipe material Similar approach like German “Stellvertreterprüfung” but only very limited number of materials covered when PVC-U or PE-HD pipes are testedPipe standard to be considered and recorded!Reaction to fire behaviour of pipes may be different in Germany and other Member States (minimum requirements in DE) => different behaviour in fire test?More experience necessary to extend the rules => common research project?
28 EN 1366-3:2009: New - Mixed Penetration Seals Combination of cables, metal pipes and plastic pipes or other servicesTest goal: are there interactions between cables/cable trays and pipes?Standard Mixed Module
29 EN 1366-3:2009: Mixed Penetration Seals - Options Option 1 (no test results available for the product):Standard cable configuration +Standard Mixed Module +Pipes depending on intended field of applicationcables of the Standard Mixed Module:A1, B, C1, D3, EG2
30 EN 1366-3:2009: The "Critical Pipe" Approach May save considerable test effort on pipe variationsCritical pipes are:Pipes with integrity failure within 5 minutes after the intended classification timePipes that are closest to the 180K threshold
31 EN 1366-3:2009: Standard flexible wall Error in table of 2004 version correctedSmaller width possible, restrained only top and bottomNew approach developedVarying stud widths consideredInsulation of wall related to aperture framing: “one stop shop” test situation possible to cover both insulated and non-insulated wallsNumber and thickness of boards only relevant when no aperture framing is usedSandwich panel constructions are not covered!Constructions with uncovered studs are not covered (e.g. shaft walls)Applications in rigid walls (≥ thickness, ≥ density) are covered (exception pipe closure devices within the wall)
32 EN 1366-3:2009: What to do with old test results? 2009 version offers more options (e.g. mixed penetration seals) but is more detailed and restrictive in standard configurations and field of application rulesThe difference has to be considered when test results from 2004 version are planned to be used:e.g. only rubber cables of 2004 version may be considered => tests to be repeated to get full cable coverage!Classical max/min size approach for collars/wraps not sufficient: more tests necessaryTests laboratories have to make sure that a common approach is used throughout Europe: training necessary also for lab staff!
33 The Future? - CPR (Construction Products Regulation) First reading in Parliament passed with considerable number of amendmentsDiscussion in Council Working Group not yet finishedCurrent draft not consistent in itselfObligation for products with European Approvals under discussion: high number of Member States in favour but no qualified majority so far
34 Highly safety relevant products excluded from harmonisation? The bizarre situation that harmonisation for highly safety relevant construction products for applications with a special European classification system should be voluntary must be changed!!CE Marking: mandatory voluntaryhENETA (ETAG, CUAP, EAD)1 - 34, 5Safety relevancelow high(AoC system)