Comiskey, D and Wilson, K (2020) A performance barrier? Cavity barrier installation in wall envelope makeups. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-8 September 2020, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
The area of passive fire protection in ventilated rainscreen wall envelope makeups post Grenfell has understandably focused on materials deemed acceptable for use depending on overall building height. Cladding and insulation products have received most attention in the aftermath of the amendments made to Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations (HMSO, 2018) and Approved Document B (HM Government, 2019). Whilst acknowledging the importance of such amendments, this paper is suggesting that the area of substandard on-site workmanship related to detail assembly, more specifically cavity barrier installation in ventilated rainscreen wall envelope makeups, can equally pose significant life safety concerns and requires greater scrutiny in terms of on-site inspection. This paper investigates potential defects related to cavity barrier installation in ventilated rainscreen envelope makeups by employing a mixed method research approach. Qualitative analysis in the form of a Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) was undertaken with industry professionals to evaluate the probability of a range of possible defects occurring during installation and the severity of negative influence of each if they did occur. The qualitative data was supplemented by a quantitative analysis in the form of a Computational Fluid Dynamics simulation undertaken using Fire Dynamics Simulator software to predict the likely effect of an occurrence. The results from this study highlight the importance of workmanship in the construction of wall envelope makeups to achieve the requisite standard of passive fire protection. The paper concludes by discussing the importance of building inspection processes in identifying substandard installations along with technologies which can potentially assist in this regard.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building defects; cavity barrier; design management; facade fire; high-rise building |
| Index terms: | design management, dynamics, regulation, computational fluid dynamics, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, high-rise building, insulation, workmanship, cladding, building defect, building regulation, failure mode, inspection, mixed method research, building height |
| Subjects: | regulatory law, quality assurance, political science, systems engineering, building performance, contractual condition, design process, research methods, professional practice, data analysis and analytics, building materials, modelling and simulation, reliability engineering, construction type, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Contract Administration, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Governance, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here