SMOKE DAMPERS BIM4HOUSING ROUNDTABLES 22-06-2023

RICHARD This is meeting is to upgrade, make in line with the building safety and fire safety acts work we did a couple of years ago identifying ways of mitigating risk within 12 fire critical assets. We drilled down very deeply asking 5 questions. This was not a static document, there were a lot of upgrades from comments, emails and conversations, we decided it was a good idea to sit down and go through the process. We’re changing that slightly, which George will explain to you now.

GEORGE (shares screen). For people that haven’t been involved, I wanted to explain what BIM4Housing is about. We’ve got 6 working groups that address the different stakeholder groups within the industry and they meet once every 2 months. The purpose of those is to identify what is it that could be improved in each of those processes if you have better information. That’s what really we call BIM - Better Information Management. And that spawned different workstreams who look at data, and we produce standardised information requirements, classifications, reusable data libraries, the main thing we’re covering today are the 12 fire safety critical asset types. We’ve also got work going on on carbon and also the digital record.

One of the challenges we have is that different people need different information for different purposes and if you ask somebody what information do you need to know about a smoke damper you’ll get a different answer depending on the context in which that’s being asked. It might well be that some of that information could be fixed, e.g. a product data sheet, and some of it might be variable, so the data changes. One of the things that we’re trying to do is to identify what are the differences between the two, ideally all of it should be machine-readable, but we’ve got a lot to do so actually being able to get the active data (the stuff that changes) to be machine-readable is a good step forward. What we also want to do is to look at these in the context of safety case reports and to be able to identify what impacts on the safety case report, or a fire risk assessment, if the status of a smoke damper changes. When it changes then potentially the risk assessment should be rerun.

And finally, we need to be able to tie back to an individual asset, because one of the things that’s become clear is that a lot of the tools and processes that are currently being used, they’re actually creating a unique record of the inspection, but it may not be tied back to that individual asset. So, that smoke damper may be checked twice a year over a period of 5 -10 years, but what we need to do is to make sure there is a record against that, irrespective of who’s done that inspection. One of the challenges there is to have it so that we’ve got a unique ID in a spatial model that you can then tie back to the data, so the information that we’re saying is important, and it might be a document, or the product’s information, or indeed locating it in the context of where that particular asset is.

And if we do that then there is a range of different software applications that inspectors are using, like Plan Radar, Riskbase, Keystone, and what they’re all doing is recording maybe the status of something and maybe the fact that works been carried out to it. But if we can identify it back to an individual unique asset then we’ve got a chance of tracking things and producing the golden thread. This is just a brief thing saying why we need machine-readable product data for certain things. The majority of things on that data sheet are probably quite reasonable to be able to manually read, but things like fire rating you probably want to have as machine-readable information because you want to identify which doors are 30 minute or 60 minute, And here we’ve got a different manufacturers data sheet and you’ll see that the way fire rating itself is described is different. If we decide that fire rating is an important property of a door set, then we want it to be machine-readable.

We’ve been carrying out work over the last 2-3 years with HACT and producing standardised data libraries which could then be used to populate any software application, so it means that it can be kept up to date. So, if we’ve got standardisation in terms of that it means that we can keep things current, so the safety cases, for example, or fire risk assessments are current. In doing that we created a reusable library with of all the asset types, the way the different FM systems within social landlords are calling things. And in some cases they call things, they’ve got different names for them, so in this one we’ve got an AOV or an opening vent or a smoke vent, but by classifying them all back to a single category (in this case Uniclass) you’ve got a way of normalising that, so everybody is comparing apples with apples. And in the library we’ve got 240 standard asset types of which 71 were fire related and 152 were safety related.

The other thing is you might hear of BIM data and COBie data. The key thing about COBie data is that the high level COBie data is common to any asset type, irrespective of whether it’s a smoke damper, a pump or a door, so there’s nothing that makes it special. So, it’s key to get this information, but it’s common for all manufactured items. The thing that makes a difference is if a smoke vent or a damper had additional attribute information and the question then is (and this is part of what we’re doing today) is what key attributes should we include? You might thing other people are doing this, like the BIM world, and the BIM world uses something called IFC and there’s a data dictionary for that, but a lot of that information is really for design, rather than for procurement or asset management. And therefore there’s a range of different classification systems and attributes that are for different purposes. Etim, for example, is what wholesalers use to be able to select and supply things. You might not have heard of that, but we’re able to incorporate that as well.

So the attributes for this AOV, these are the BIM attributes, so we’ve got common things like width, height and depth, we’ve also got fire rating, but there are certain parameters here that you may decide could be just in a data sheet and therefore we don’t need to collect this as machine-readable information and that’s really the purpose of these workshops. If we can get that data in a machine-readable form, then we can provide to installation contractors or manufacturers these type of data templates to fill in. So they don’t have to put the information into the BIM models, in fact ideally they shouldn’t be doing that, but they can just feed it into spreadsheets etc.

To move on from there, about 2 years ago I was asked to lead the Golden Thread Initiative asset and survey information group, which was one of ten working groups set up to be able to advise the government on what information was needed. And when I asked people like Paul White and Stephen what information do we need to know about a smoke damper, they’ll say ‘it depends. It depends on where it’s going, what wall it’s going into etc. So, there’s a lot of complexity there and we’er expecting the government to tell us what to do and they’re not going to, it’s got to be up to us to interpret that information, so that’s why we tried to concentrate on a maximum of 250 asset types so that we can track them through. And all of that work led to the creation of what we’re gonna go through today. So, we’ve done this exercise for all of those 12 asset types. One of the things we realise we probably ned to add onto this is lifts.

By doing this we want to be able to see we can split aside the data from the geometry. The geometry, the CAD systems, the BIM systems, are there to really locate where things are, but we can hold the attribute information in databases which then can provide connections through to any software application, whether it be procurement or commissioning. And that means we can include things like the new BS8644 data very easily and also retrospectively. So, if you want to add that into your analysis of a building, maybe it’s coming up to gateway review, then that’s the sort of thing that can be done. This is showing you what we’re going to be covering today. The publications we produced really described what a damper is in the context of…what risks, this is the way the HSE asked us to look at things. So, rather than look at things from point of view of the asset itself they wanted to place it in the context of what risk is it mitigating.

So, this is the first part we’re going to look at. Then, what do people do to a smoke damper to stop it from working. We then come onto the key information here and that is what data do we need to ensure that it performs as required. These are the main things that we’re identified, and then we move onto the tasks that are going to be needed, and there’s an example here out of SFG20. Then the level of competencies needed and then how do we record changes. Broadly, that’s what we’re going to cover today. One final thing is that we did this exercise last year for some of the assets, but we’ve not done it for smoke control yet and we’ve not done it for smoke dampers, and that is identifying for each of these bits of information who is responsible for providing it. You might say, for example, the location should come from the designer and the trade contractor, but the client needs to be accountable etc.

So, the principle idea of this is to go through each of these and then, with a follow-up session, be able to turn this into something useable. At the end of the day we’re all volunteers and if we’re asking you to give up your time we need to make sure we can give you something as an output at the end.

RICHARD We’re going to start on question 1. What risks do smoke control dampers mitigate?

PAUL WHITE I have to say it looks like a pretty comprehensive list. I'm not sure that the last one is something that they mitigate because actually they are chucking it directly outside. So I don't think they mitigate the risk to the environment, I think during a fire they probably make it worse.

RICHARD Yeah, that’s clearly wrong, isn’t it. Good one.

PAUL WHITE That’s the whole point of them is to get it out of the inside and to the outside to protect people.

IAN DONCASTER Risk of system failure, is the item part of a system? We’re talking about the individual item here, not the system, aren’t we?

RICHARD It’s a funny one, because we are talking about the individual item, but at the same time you maybe have to talk about it in context.

GEORGE We discussed this on Monday. I think what we need to do at the moment is probably concentrate on the individual asset and then look at the system as a wider thing. I absolutely agree with the process of making sure that we’ve got the systems sorted.

PAUL WHITE Yeah, I think that is a risk to the system rather than to something that the smoke control damper mitigates in itself, because it could contribute to failure, that’s the point.

RICHARD Right, so that’s another one to go. Risk of system failure.

PAUL WHITE I think that that’s not one of the points, I think that might be a comment that goes after the table.

IAN DONCASTER Because it is about an individual asset we’re talking about.

RICHARD Question 1b: what compromises a smoke control dampers ability to perform as required? So, what are the risks to the actual performance of smoke control dampers themselves? Let’s look at the headings: we’ve got the general section, materials, installation.

PAUL WHITE It’s not the risk of the wrong supporting construction because that’s the wrong point, it’s the risk of incorrect installation. You can’t have a wrong supporting construction, you just have the supporting construction that is there. So, it’s the installation of the smoke control damper to the construction or the duct work.

RICHARD I see what you mean, the damper’s got to fit in with and be flexible enough to be installed in the correct way, whatever it is going into.

PAUL WHITE That’s right, you’ve got to select the right one to go in the hole in the wall.

IAN DONCASTER Are they not saying there that the wall might not be strong enough to support the weight?

PAUL WHITE Well, it still comes down to the same thing in the fact that the damper has to be installed correctly into the supporting construction. If the supporting construction is wrong, that doesn’t really go with the damper because there’s not a lot you can do about that, it shouldn’t have been put there in the first place. The supporting construction in itself probably isn’t wrong.

IAN DONCASTER I think that’s not very well worded, but I think what it’s getting at is a correct point because what you’re trying to do here is sign post people to not get it wrong. Now, we all know you’ve got to install it correctly, but what people that don’t install dampers might not understand is what that means. So, if any of these things here is wrong then there’s going to be a problem, it will limit the ability. So the construction is important and it’s not just how it’s installed, it is what is there. So, if you try to install it into something that’s just not physically strong enough to take the weight, for example, then you might have installed it correctly in terms of its seals and everything else, but the wall is just not strong enough. So, I think that point could be better worded, but it’s still valid.

PAUL WHITE Alright, so the supporting construction or ductwork cannot support the SCD.

IAN DONCASTER Risk of inadequate supporting structure.

GEORGE I agree with the point about the wall not being an important context of this, not simply whether you’ve picked the right damper.

PAUL WHITE The other ones are all about the installation, so they’re…before you go into those specifically you just want to put incorrect installation method, which may include one or more of the following. What’s PMC?

GEORGE If you don’t know, I think we’ll take it out.

RICHARD The point is about competency of the seal installation, so maybe we need to reword that so that it doesn’t include PMC rather than taking the whole thing out. That needs rewriting.

PAUL WHITE The other thing is if they’re a part 3 installer they may not be capable of installing dampers or ducts because ducts and dampers aren’t pipes and cables and therefore they should be installed following the instructions for the damper or the duct, not pipes and cables. And that’s something that happens all the time. we’d reword that risk of the installers competency being limited to, and I’m assuming that that’s 1366 part 3, but should follow the dampers instructions which would be what was tested in part 2.

IAN DONCASTER Is this a general point, or an installation point?

PAUL WHITE It’s an installation point.

RICHARD There is a section underneath it on installation.

PAUL WHITE The point is if you install it to part 3, it’s wrong. I think PMC is possibly penetration something contractor.

GEORGE Yeah, I just Googled it and there is a range of different things, project management competency, it’s a competency framework, I think.

RICHARD Now we’re looking at risk of human intervention on ancillary assets, such as smoke detectors, impacting on asset performance. So we need to look at those 6 or 7 including that down to materials. Any comments on that?

IAN DONCASTER I guess what we’re really saying there is if someone disconnects a fire alarm…it’s things like that, it breaks with the system. The comment that Colin has made there, which is one we picked up on Monday, about AOVs and smoke control dampers and the use of terminology of words. It’s such a big issue, we just use a generic term when we should be using a specific term and a smoke control damper is very, very specific and arguably a subset of a generic term like AOV. And I don’t know how we capture that because you know when something becomes widely used badly, it causes confusion.

RICHARD Let’s move down to materials.

IAN DONCASTER What does excessive water damage mean? What you’re saying is if you’ve got a building that has a hole in the roof it might compromise the equipment because it all got damaged.

PAUL WHITE Or there’s been a fire and it’s been sprayed a lot with hoses.

IAN DONCASTER Well, they’re different things, and operation under fire when it might get shot with a hose is obviously…

PAUL WHITE I think this is in terms of fixing it after something has happened to it.

IAN DONCASTER It just seems like a strange comment because if the building has fundamentally got some issues, like it’s not…how far do we go on this? Every asset is susceptible to the building being trashed by water because no one fixed the roof or all the windows were smashed in.

RICHARD I can remember this, and it was about leaks.

GEORGE I think that was more about cavity barriers and things. I’m concerned that we may be drifting here.

RICHARD OK, take that out, Jiss. Installation.

IAN DONCASTER The problem with installation is that it wasn’t installed right in the first place because they didn’t know what they were doing, so the first one on the list should be that.

GEORGE Paul, Stephen and Paul McSoley from Mace, and the Passive Fire Group, they’ve been looking at the decision trees that people take when they’re selecting certain types of products.

PAUL WHITE (shares screen). This is all the things that you should need to consider.

GEORGE The critical thing here is that it’s the product selection and the many different elements that you need to be aware of when you’re actually picking the product.

PAUL WHITE That’s right.

IAN DONCASTER Is this available to everybody?

PAUL WHITE I can check, Ian, and if we can we’ll get it sent round. I’m not sure how far Paul’s got with this one and he’s being a bit careful.

GEORGE But Ian, if you wanted to review it and contribute to it I’m confident that Paul McSoley would be receptive to that.

PAUL WHITE It’s all public domain, essentially, however we’re just not quite right on every single page because you’ll see there’s quite a few sheets with different stuff. Anyway, we’ve got all the things that go with the classification, we’ve got 2 position, 3 position, sizes, flow rates, powering, zoning, cause and effects, UKCA. Then you’ve got installations in flexible symmetricals, deflection heads, aperture hole 3 or 4 sides, has it been tested in a 3-sided arrangement, is the supporting construction compatible with the damper you’ve selected, sufficient access both sides. And then we go into rigid walls, the same list of things, and then floors compatible with various different bits and pieces, VE HOD etc. If you notice that basically we’ve got a hundred questions depending on where everything fits in.

GEORGE Just to put this in context for people that are on the call who are maybe in asset management or doing safety case reviews, they won’t be going down to this level of detail, but what they might do is want this as evidence that the right product has been selected at the right time. We’re not trying to boil the ocean here, we’re trying to have some sort of methodology that can be used, and quite frankly this is the type of content that could be used by AI to be able to advise people on what products should be considered, so filtering it down. Could you go to the flow chart tab?

PAUL WHITE This gives you a rough idea of all the questions you need to be asking and designing in before you actually make a selection So, you’re looking at whether you’ve got to look at integrity, insulation, multiple zones, single compartments, and then you come onto this level about selecting which product. Then you need to look at fire strategy to see how long it’s got to last, then you’ve got to look into how you mount it.

GEORGE If anybody is interested in this, if you put your name in the chat that you want to get involved in the process. Basically there are three elements that we want to pick up on this for each of the asset types. There’s a group that’s going to be looking at data, another that’ll be looking at process, and the other one is application. So, if you’re willing to spend an hour or so on another session with other people who are subject matter experts on the areas then you’d be very welcome.

PAUL WHITE Just to make a quick point, there’s two things. This will be ideally going ahead, the issue that I’m sure people on the call will probably have is what have I got now and am I going to get this information, and the simple answer is probably no and that’s where you need to be a bit careful. But hopefully, moving forward, then you will have all of this information.

GEORGE But the reason I brought that up, this is available to you (what Jiss is showing you here now). A lot of the thinking that’s gone into this has then been a part of what Paul has just been showing you going forward. So, it’s a partway step.

RICHARD So, this is the last bit. Has anybody got anything they disagree with or want to add on?

PAUL WHITE I think there’s a few things that might apply to fire dampers which don’t necessarily apply to smoke dampers, or they might be slightly different. I haven’t seen this before, if you want to send it to me I’ll spend a little but of time editing it and sending it back.

RICHARD That would be very helpful, thank you. OK, let’s move down to question 2. We’re taking a slightly different approach, primarily on question 2 which is information based.

IAIN DONCASTER Can I ask a question, base material, does it matter what it’s made out of? Because if it’s passed the test it’s passed the test.

STEPHEN GORE I guess it depends on the environment it’s being installed in.

IAN DONCASTER But then that’s the previous bit about installation.

GEORGE No, this is from an asset management point of view, you might want to know whether it’s galvanised steel or whatever.

PAUL WHITE This was from George’s presentation, this is almost like the COBie data which is if you needed to replace something you would want to know what material it was made out of.

IAN DONCASTER Well, wouldn’t you just want to know what the specification was? Knowing that it’s made out of galvanised steel as opposed to some other material isn’t gonna tell you anything about whether the specification is useful or fit for purpose, is it?

GEORGE The specification would be ideally also provided. What we’ve discovered already is that the specification information is often very difficult to get hold of. So, this is just standard asset management information. You might not want to know it, Ian, from a carbon perspective, for example.

IAN DONCASTER If you’ve got the ‘what has been installed by whom and when’, doesn’t that actually tell you the answer you want to know? Because that’s the only thing you want to know. What is type telling us in this section?

GEORGE Are there different types of smoke damper?

PAUL WHITE There’s probably two: wall mounting and duct mounting.

IAN DONCASTER But, the bullet points - I don’t understand how the bullet points relate to the type.

PAUL WHITE I suppose the last one is does it need servicing and maintenance.

IAN DONCASTER What’s that got to do with the type? Everything needs service and maintenance.

GEORGE No, not at all, certain items don’t need maintenance, certain do. It may be that all smoke control dampers need maintenance, but they may need different types of maintenance.

PAUL WHITE Yeah, if you follow 9999 there’s a whole set of details on maintenance for daily, weekly, monthly etc. Anyway, we digress. I’ll have a look through that as well if you send me the document.

GEORGE Josephine, as someone doing surveys and safety case inspections and things, looking at it from that perspective just to see if there is any information you would need to know about a smoke damper.

JOSEPHINE BAKULYOWA I’ve just come back onto the call, so I don’t know what the question is really.

GEORGE OK, so we’re trying to understand what information you, for example, as a safety case surveyor, would want to know about smoke control dampers apart from where they are, what the model is, who installed it etc.

JOSEPHINE BAKULYOWA I’d like to know the history of how it’s been serviced, if it’s tested annually with cause and effects. It’s very important for how it’s been maintained and if, for example, they’re installing screws or parts, what type of parts are they installing and are they compatible with the smoke damper, just like fire doors where they say the screws are very important. And you find a lot of contractors come in with their own ideas and they say I’m gonna fix it this way, whether it’s been tested, after it’s been worked or maintained, who is taking a close look because that can effect the way it works in the effect of a real fire.

PAUL WHITE I think that what you’re actually looking at is the history of fire inspections, maintenance, cleaning, non-compliances, the fixing of non-compliances and actions taken to prevent recurrence. All the normal qualities, but the issue is going forward all this stuff may well be happening, but at the moment it quite possibly isn’t. So, it’s very difficult to get any of this information because a) people don’t know they should have been doing it and also it’s the quality of the information of the people who have been doing it. So, if somebody said we’re a fire damper inspector and we inspected smoke control dampers you might as well throw that report away because the smoke control dampers should be inspected in line with the smoke control system, not just the product. And if somebody shows you a fire damper inspection with a hundred dampers on it and it’s take 2 days to do it, it’s probably not right.

SCOTT FENTON I didn’t see testing and commissioning on there, I don’t know if that needs to be covered. We did put in a smoke damper system, we had to make sure that the duct work was safely protected, so if it was really hot and people touch it it needs to be protected. That’s not the damper, that’s the system.

PAUL WHITE Yeah, Scott, it is all part of the system and mainly in smoke control systems the duct work should be protected and it comes down to is it installed following the manufacturers instructions in very instance. And if it’s the wrong duct or it’s a smoke control duct it should be insulated, otherwise it is the wrong duct.

ANTONIO DE SOUSA Just in terms of smoke dampers, in terms of testing them should we not include the asset number which says this is damper 1 of 100, because let’s say you check the smoke dampers and you only find 95. That means that 5 are either missing, you couldn’t find them, or they weren’t installed. So we need some way to say there should be X number of smoke dampers in this building according to the construction requirements.

RICHARD Absolutely, and also their location, most importantly.

ANTONIO DE SOUSA Because it’s all fine and well testing the ones you can find, but what are the ones that haven’t been installed or are missing.

IAN DONCASTER Yeah, that’s always the question, the ones you can’t find, or that you don’t even know are there.

GEORGE We’ve got a section on maintenance as well, so we can come onto that. Any other comments? we’ve got 3 more sections to do so we need to move on.

RICHARD Section 3, which is what tasks are required to ensure that smoke control dampers are installed, commissioned, inspected and maintained properly.

PAUL WHITE In your second green paragraph, air conditioning units are nothing to do with this. What you could do is write that to a smoke control system, so just do an edit/replace and put smoke control system. And qualified smoke control engineer.

GEORGE Is there third-party accreditation? And how widely used is that?

PAUL WHITE Yes, there is. There’s, I think, 30 SCA members and 10 non-SCA members of the IFCC SDI19 scheme.

COLIN WHITE You’re not far out, Paul, I think it’s about 45 specialist contractors now. I’m not sure there is a qualification for a smoke control engineer. We tend to say or recommend that it’s installed by a specialist smoke control contractor, preferably with SDI19.

SCOTT FENTON That one where it says check base material has been constructed properly I agree with for the first time, but you’re not going to want to do it every single year going forward. Once it’s in and it’s working and it’s good, you wouldn’t expect someone to come in and check…

RICHARD The point is to ensure they’re installed, commissioned, inspected and maintained, so…Any comments on what’s on the screen right now? So, we’ve got this extract from SFG20.

IAN DONCASTER Can I just make a comment on that, should we not say competent? Because we’re not saying qualified because there isn’t a qualification.

PAUL WHITE That’s why I used accredited because I’m assuming that means a third-party so therefore they should be competent, because the contractor is a company, it’s difficult to…if you’re accredited they should be checking your competency. Change it to accredited and competent then.

IAN DONCASTER You could be competent but being accredited means you go through more of a process, so it should be competent and accredited I would have said.

RICHARD OK, so we’ve got that SFG20 example.

PAUL WHITE I definitely need to check that because I’m not absolutely certain about some of the content on the SFG20.

GEORGE I think the point there is that I don’t think SFG20 has a specific one for smoke dampers…

PAUL WHITE And that’s my issue, George, and I haven’t actually been through the part for fire and smoke dampers either, so I would reserve a bit of judgement on that.

GEORGE The reason I’m suggesting it, though, is because that is what 80% of the industry will be using as their means of maintaining any damper.

PAUL WHITE Yeah. The point is that that’s had no input from anybody outside of BESA.

RICHARD So maybe that should actually be in the appendix as information as opposed to being in the main body of the text which is a recommendation.

PAUL WHITE For a start, it says fire smoke dampers and that’s wrong and it needs to be changed.

GEORGE Is there an equivalent one that you could provide that is a set of maintenance instructions that are like this?

PAUL WHITE I can provide a shorter one because it’s in EN1565O and I think there’s also some in one of the other BESA things, but again, it still refers to fire and smoke dampers…all the documentation is leapfrogging itself, and some of the information is out of date, so I don’t know whether the content of this is correct and up to date or what has maybe been missed out of it, because some of these documents are written in a different way from a different perspective.

COLIN WHITE You mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the predominant requirement should be that maintenance should be to the manufacturers requirements. You have different materials with dampers, you’ve got galvanised sheet metal blades, calcium silicate blades, so you can’t just chuck an industry standard maintenance instruction, the emphasis has got to be on the manufacturer’s requirements.

IAN DONCASTER We’ve got this learning point here that again people think that smoke control dampers are fire dampers and they’re not, and we’ve got to be very clear that smoke control dampers are not fire dampers and they’re not fire smoke dampers, they are a different product.

RICHARD Question 4: competency: what level of competency training needs to be in place? We’ve not got too much there.

IAN DONCASTER One of the issues that you can get in the industry is you’ve got a competent person installing a damper, but they’re installing to a structure that is built by someone else. So as a smoke control system installer you don’t have direct control over what’s been built. Now, obviously we’d want to check that and verify that it was right and we’d issued drawings and it’s done to that, but you do get a slight divide in that the person that’s actually done it, the main contractor or a builder or some sort of plasterboard installer. So, the question about, there is a gap there that is a problem for the whole of the industry.

PAUL WHITE If you look at all the information from Paul McSoley and what we’re doing in various areas, we’re trying to overcome that because we’re trying to make it very clear that the design includes the wall because if it doesn’t then literally you can’t select anything that goes through it. So, you can’t sort out penetration seals for pipes and cables, you can’t sort out fire doors, you can’t do anything. We’re working on that, but it’s gonna take a long time, Ian. We’re looking at once you’ve decided what the risk is and the space then you need to decide which wall it is, and then when the wall is there everybody can go off and select the dampers. But, that’s the bit that needs to change.

RICHARD Let’s focus on the questions and have a look through those and see if there is anything glaringly missing or needs changing.

PAUL WHITE I think the second one from the end might be difficult. I don’t know at the moment how people are demonstrating their competence. They can demonstrate experience, but they can’t demonstrate competence and they can demonstrate training, but not necessarily competence. Anybody who is third-party accredited, you’d expect that from, but I don’t know that anybody is doing it in that way at the moment because it’s very difficult because there’s no qualifications available.

RICHARD This document isn’t the status quo or the state of play, this document is this is what we should be striving towards.

PAUL WHITE Yes, I understand that, I’d just be careful for what you ask for making a statement like that.

GEORGE Should we say an element of experience then, instead of competence?

PAUL WHITE No, because this is the problem because they do need to demonstrate competence, but I’m not sure that just by holding an SDI 19 certificate means that that’s the case. So, get rid of that one and just leave the next one.

SCOTT FENTON Can I comment on the second point and the last point. Someone mentioned earlier about the building, but the person installing it assessing the suitability of the base material, that’s quite challenging. The person doing the install might not know anything about wall linings or floors they’re going through, they’ve got a hole to either go through or they’ve got nothing where a wall has to be built around later. And then the last point is saying should as opposed to must. No disrespect to who wrote it, it sounds a bit wooly. The second point is saying they must be competent, and when it gets down the person doing it should be competent.

PAUL WHITE Scott, the issue is standard speak. So, in British standards should means must and in European standard speak shall means must. I think e either need to stick to one or the other and we probably need to put a note at the start to say should means must.

GEORGE It’s interesting that the Europeans use the English language more correctly than we are, because should doesn’t mean must, shall does mean must.

PAUL WHITE Yeah, but the point is if you really like to get picky it’s I shall and we shall and the other one is will. So, you will and he will, it doesn’t work either.

RICHARD Anybody not happy now with those on the screen? OK, we’ll move on to question 5. How are the changes from one product to another recorded? So, it’s change management.

GEORGE I think one of the key things here is initially, and it’s been very clear over the last year or so, people are still not recording what’s getting installed. In the BIM models that people are producing, they’re not identifying a smoke damper, for example. They’re placing, in many cases, a generic object, it doesn’t have to be a product, but they’re not adding a proper category or a proper classification against something and therefore what we’re not doing adequately is recording where things are installed. So, for the people that are no the call, would you agree that’s important?

PAUL WHITE From the BIM point of view it’s absolutely critical that what’s installed is recorded. The issue is if you look through specifications, and I get a lot of specifications that I look through, I see that they’re using motorised fire smoke dampers in a basement and they’ve got to be smoke control dampers. But it doesn’t matter, they won’t change the specification and therefore if they don’t change the specification they they’re highly unlikely to change the model, because they still think that they’re right. This is the problem they don’t understand that it’s an FD, an NFD or an SCD, they still think with smoke control dampers you need to have the word motorised. You don’t because they have to be motorised, and it’s very difficult. We’re working hard as an industry to have FD, NFD and SCD, just to make sure that everybody knows it’s the same thing. In terms of as-built, I don’t actually know with regards to basements who’s in control of the design of the basement system and whether they even pull it all together so it exists as one document, because it gets let as separate contracts and stuff like that, but it can be quite difficult.

SCOTT FENTON My query was it’s all about change at what point are we talking about change? Because I’m an architect, a design manager and I work on projects at Heathrow. So, we could have change during a design period, we could have change when the design is finalised but then the installer can’t purchase the products and has to make a change. And then you could have change when a product is installed and it’s changed later. And they’ve probably all got implications, so I don’t know if the question is specific to once it’s installed or the other two scenarios.

GEORGE It’s all of those, Scott.

IAN DONCASTER I was picking up a similar point to Scott in that we’re talking about change, it might be that someone’s specified a product and you actually install a different product and then you’ve got to make sure obviously that the product is fit for purpose and the reason that you’ve change it. Because if you go back to Grenfell when cladding was changed and the reasons for it weren’t there. The same thing applies here that if you’ve changed the product because it’s a different specification…performance, or whether it’s just a different size and it won’t fit or whatever. And the as-built is obviously fundamentally the most important thing and that that final as-built thing is correct. So, that’s the information we need to be collecting here on this schedule of change.

PAUL WHITE And potentially now on an HRB post gateway 2 if you change something you’re going to have to send it back up to the building safety regulator to get them to approve it. And they’re going to approve it in 12 weeks which is a waiting period that people aren’t going to want to stick with. So, this part is very important.

IAN DONCASTER That only comes down to getting you design sorted at an early stage, which sadly people rarely seem to do.

PAUL WHITE Yeah, and I haven’t seen any change in that yet.

GEORGE Well, we are starting to see that, Paul we’re starting to see main contractors refusing to go forward with projects because the design isn’t adequately complete when they’re being asked to take it on.

PAUL WHITE If you’re actually seeing that now, then great, because I literally had one on my desk where the design information is so poor in this area, I wouldn’t take the job.

GEORGE Yeah, Balfour Beatty have told us that they’ve done that already on one or two projects. If anybody’s interested in that particular topic put ‘change’ into the chat, because I think we’re going to do something across the different asset types around how we can record change.

RICHARD OK, so I think what we’ve got here is pretty comprehensive, actually. Anything anybody wants to add? OK, that’s good, and we’re nearly out of time. Just to repeat what George just said about putting in the chat, if you’re interested in getting involved in the change work put ‘change’ in he chat. If you’re interested in getting to the information element, the actual data itself, the application of that data or process. Put one of those three or more into the chat and we’ll be moving on that as soon as we’ve finished these roundtables in a couple of weeks.

GEORGE So, did people think this has been a useful exercise? Because obviously we’ve all given up 1 1/2 hours of our time for which we’re very grateful, but like I said at the beginning, we’re all volunteers so we obviously want to try and make sure this is delivering some value for people.

ADDENDUM

CHAT

Colin White

It should be acknowledged that an SCD is part of a SHEV system You should not just consider it in isolation

Ian Doncaster – FASS

Risk of inadequate supporting structure

Colin White

consider not using AOV when relates to SCD's. SCD can certainly open automatically but in SHEV systems an awful lot of them are required to Close.

You also might need the cosh information if calcium silicate dampers for example