10.2 Mechanical Smoke Shaft Performance
MD wrote to the 4 member companies of GPDA with the question on Testing of gypsum walls for
use as a smoke ventilation shaft on 17 January. We have had replies from SAINT-GOBAIN and
Etex Group and both David Mowatt and Colin White are meeting with Knauf on 11 March for
discussion.
Update on approach to GPDA and their 4-member companies on testing of smoke
ventilation shafts
The SCA wrote to the Gypsum Products Development Association (GPDA) as the SCA had
become aware that gypsum walls may not be tested for use as a smoke ventilation shaft,
including the two primary types of fire-resistant gypsum walls used in UK construction;
symmetrical walls (e.g BG GypWall A206312) and asymmetrical shaft walls (e.g BG
GypWall Shaft G306035). These are often used to construct one or more sides of a smoke
shaft.
The GDPA replied asking that we contact the 4 members individually as they felt they would
not wish to discuss in front of their competitors.
I wrote in January asking if the company has tested their own gypsum walls, or shaft walls,
to withstand the negative pressures generated in a mechanical smoke extract shaft? Typical
thresholds for mechanical smoke extract ducts in fire conditions are -150Pa, -300pa, -500pa
& +500pa. Typical thresholds for mechanical smoke extract ducts at ambient temperatures
are -500pa, -1000pa & -1500pa.
We received replies from Saint-Gobain Interior Solutions and Etex Building Performance Ltd.
We also received an offer to meet with Knauf and that meeting took place with Mike Duggan
and Colin White on 11 March 2024 with Mandeep Bansal and Neil Brewer.
The suggestion from that meeting was:
• Mandeep suggested this is a GPDA matter as all GPDA members systems will function in a
similar way.
• It was felt “industry guidance” produced by SCA/GPDA was needed.
• Mandeep will mention to GDPA he had a direct meeting with the SCA
• We need to make contractors aware that these products are not tested or designed to be
used in pressurised systems and should not be used.
• MD to go back to GDPA to say from our approaches to members we have found a lack of
evidence to support requirements. There is an issue of systems being proposed that are not
suitable and we need to work together to create industry guidance. SCA needs GPDA help
to notify the relevant stakeholders not to use untested products.
In addition, on 13 March I received an email from Irek Starzyk from Crown House
Technologies in Kent who raised similar concerns, and concluded saying within BESA they
are considering to create a bulletin to emphasise this serious issue – and would SCA be
interested to contribute?
David suggested Colin White have a discussion. CW has explained that we will get back in
touch once the GPDA has developed a draft.
11 SCA Funds