What needs to be checked for a PIR panel roof to meet fire requirements?

The requirements should reach the specification before the panel is selected. This allows an immediate check of whether a given variant has the correct scope of confirmations. General information about the use of PIR does not indicate the foam composition, facings, coatings or installation method, which may be relevant to the classification.

Reaction to fire describes the contribution of the complete product to fire development. Fire resistance concerns the behaviour of an element over a specified time, with criteria such as R, E and I. The BROOF(t1) classification refers to the behaviour of the roof under external fire exposure according to the given test method.

None of this information replaces the others. A good reaction-to-fire class does not prove the required REI resistance, and BROOF(t1) does not mean that the roof will retain load-bearing capacity during a fire from the inside. The exact designations must be retained in the summary and it must be checked which of them are required.

The documentation must correspond to the panel type, thickness, facings and joints. Spans, number of bays, position of fasteners and permitted support conditions are also important. A result for a wall panel must not be transferred to a roof panel, or one PIR version to another.

The phrase “up to a specified class” does not mean that every thickness and every purlin spacing will achieve it. The conditions for the actually designed arrangement must be read. If a required parameter is marked as undeclared, it cannot be supplemented by an assumption based on a similar appearance of the product.

The roof is supported by purlins and the main structure, whose behaviour during a fire is significant for the whole. Loss of support may negate the panel’s ability to perform its function. The design should cover connections, displacements and any protection of the structure.

Changing the purlin layout to reduce cost requires re-verification. Additional loads on the roof must also be taken into account in accordance with the scope of the design. The classification does not give automatic approval for any equipment or for changing the method of fixing the panels.

A skylight, hatch or service penetration interrupts the continuity of the covering. The properties of a full panel do not automatically transfer to such a section. Appropriately selected framing, sealing and support are needed, taking into account the requirements for the roof.

In a new building, the locations of these elements are best determined before the panel length list. This limits later cuts and accidental weakening. If additional equipment is planned, its effect on the fire protection solution and the necessary distances and penetrations must be verified in accordance with the design.

If an internal wall with the required resistance meets a panel roof, both elements must be coordinated. The method of termination should take into account the roof slope profile, structural movements and the requirements for the junction between compartments. It should not be assumed that cutting the wall to the shape of the sheet automatically creates a proper connection.

It is worth resolving this detail before installing services under the roof. Ducts and cables should not accidentally interrupt the planned continuity. Responsibility for the connection must be clearly assigned, as it may lie at the interface of work by several teams. Separate parameters of the roof panel and the wall panel do not replace an assessment of the place where they meet.

In the procurement documentation, specify the full configuration and the required classes, as well as the accessories required by the system. On delivery and during execution, check the conformity of markings and the method of making connections. An element of the same thickness may have a different classification range.

After completion, retain the documents and photographs of relevant details. Any subsequent changes to the roof should refer to this set. This ensures that the assessment is not based on the general statement that the core is PIR, but on the actual solution that was designed and executed.