Explore Intumescent Coatings →
Fire stopping design coordination should take place before mechanical and electrical services are installed, not when ceilings and risers are about to close. The practical objective is to identify every relevant compartment line, coordinate each service penetration, select a suitable evidence-backed system for the actual construction and establish the inspection and approval trail before access becomes restricted.
Early coordination helps reduce oversized openings, unsuitable service arrangements, abortive work, programme delays and gaps in the final fire safety information.
Before M&E installation begins, confirm the compartment strategy, assign design responsibilities, create a penetration schedule, select a suitable tested system for each actual condition, coordinate openings and supports, approve representative benchmarks, establish inspection hold points and define the evidence required for handover.
This checklist is intended for principal contractors, M&E contractors, MEP coordinators, designers, package managers and commercial property teams delivering fit-outs, refurbishments and new-build work in England.
It is not a substitute for the project fire strategy, design appointments, product evidence, Building Regulations requirements, building control process or advice from appropriately competent project professionals.
A service penetration is not simply a gap that can be filled after the service has been installed. It is an interface involving:
If one part of this arrangement changes without the other parts being reviewed, the installed condition may no longer fall within the evidence used to select the proposed system.
Typical coordination problems include:
A product name or tube of sealant is not a fire stopping design. The complete installed arrangement must be suitable for the required fire performance and the actual site conditions.
Approved Document B provides statutory guidance on ways of meeting the fire safety requirements of the Building Regulations in England.
In Volume 2, Section 10, the guidance states that openings through fire-resisting elements for pipes, ducts, conduits and cables should be as few as possible, as small as practicable and appropriately fire-stopped. It also recognises that different fire-stopping materials and systems suit different conditions and that not every system is suitable for every situation.
Project teams should confirm which edition, amendments, transitional provisions and building control arrangements apply to their work. A detail copied from a previous project should not be assumed to be suitable for a different wall, floor, service or opening arrangement.
The Building Regulations dutyholder regime also places duties on clients, designers, principal designers, contractors and principal contractors. The government's guidance on design and building work explains the relevant duties and competence requirements.
These Building Regulations roles should not be confused with the similarly named roles under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Both regimes may apply, but they address different legal duties. The HSE summary of CDM duties provides further information on construction health and safety responsibilities.
Clear terminology helps prevent different fire protection measures from being treated as interchangeable.Penetration seal A system used to maintain fire resistance where a service passes through a fire-separating wall or floor. Linear joint seal A system used to protect a joint or gap between fire-resisting elements or components. Cavity barrier A construction intended to restrict the spread of fire and smoke within a concealed cavity. Fire damper A device associated with ventilation ductwork that is intended to resist fire spread through an opening. Its installation, support, access and maintenance requirements must be coordinated separately.
Approved Document B states that access should be provided to fire dampers and their actuating mechanisms for inspection, testing and maintenance. It also states that fire stopping around fire dampers, fire-resisting ducts, fire and smoke dampers and smoke-control ducts should follow the relevant manufacturer's or supplier's installation instructions.
| Check | Required information | Suggested owner | Evidence | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compartment strategy confirmed | Current fire strategy, controlled drawings and required fire resistance | Principal designer or appointed design lead | Drawing and document references with revision status | ☐ |
| Design responsibilities assigned | Responsibility matrix covering openings, services, supports, system selection, review and inspection | Client, principal designer and principal contractor | Design responsibility matrix and appointments | ☐ |
| Penetration schedule created | Unique reference, location, service, substrate, opening and required performance | Named M&E or design coordinator | Controlled penetration schedule | ☐ |
| System evidence reviewed | Evidence covering the actual substrate, service, opening, orientation and performance | Appointed competent designer or reviewer | Accepted system detail and supporting evidence | ☐ |
| Routes and openings coordinated | Spacing, annular gaps, edge distances, supports, access and working room | M&E coordinator and trade designers | Coordinated drawings or model | ☐ |
| Representative benchmarks accepted | Principal recurring penetration types installed and reviewed | Principal contractor and agreed technical parties | Benchmark record, photographs and comments | ☐ |
| Inspection hold points defined | Inspection stages and authority to release work | Principal contractor and quality team | Inspection plan or permit process | ☐ |
| Handover evidence specified | Photographs, location references, system details, inspections and remedial records | Principal contractor and information manager | Project evidence standard and handover requirements | ☐ |
The suggested owners above are examples only. The project appointments and responsibility matrix should identify the actual accountable parties.
Begin with controlled information identifying the fire-resisting walls, floors, shafts, risers and other relevant fire-separating elements.
For each element, confirm:
Installers should not be expected to infer compartment lines from general architectural layouts, outdated drawings or temporary site markings.
In refurbishment projects, available drawings may not accurately represent concealed conditions. Targeted opening-up work or a suitable compartmentation survey may be required before service routes and remedial scopes are finalised.
The project should clearly identify who is responsible for developing, coordinating, reviewing, installing and verifying each penetration detail.
Building Regulations duties apply across the project team, but the principal designer is not automatically the specialist designer of every fire-stopping system. Similarly, the fire-stopping installer should not be assumed to have responsibility for redesigning unsuitable openings or service arrangements on site unless that responsibility has been clearly appointed and the organisation is competent to undertake it.
Avoid using the word “approved” without defining what it means. Review by a manufacturer, fire engineer, specialist designer, principal designer, principal contractor, building control body or the Building Safety Regulator does not necessarily have the same purpose or effect.
The project should instead define a clear technical review and acceptance process, including who has authority to accept a proposed detail and who must be consulted when the site condition changes.
A controlled penetration schedule should be created before builders' work openings and service routes are fixed.
Each planned penetration should have a unique reference and, where possible, be linked to the relevant drawing or model location.
The schedule should distinguish between cables, cable bunches, cable trays, metal pipes, combustible pipes, insulated services, busbars, ducts, dampers and mixed-service openings.
These conditions are not interchangeable. A change in service material, diameter, insulation, orientation, spacing or support arrangement may affect whether the proposed system remains suitable.
The proposed penetration-sealing system should be reviewed against the exact conditions covered by its supporting evidence.
The review should consider:
A general product datasheet is not sufficient evidence for a specific penetration. The submittal should identify the system or detail being proposed and explain how its evidence relates to the actual project condition.
If the site condition falls outside the scope of the available evidence, the issue should be referred through the project's agreed technical review and change-control process before work continues.
Do not combine components from unrelated tested systems or create an improvised hybrid detail on site without suitable supporting evidence and technical review.
Overlay the M&E service routes with the compartment strategy and resolve congested areas before installation.
Coordination should confirm that:
The project should also confirm who forms the opening, who provides framing, sleeves or pattresses, and who repairs any damage to the surrounding wall or floor.
Penetration seals should not be expected to support service loads unless that function is specifically covered by the proposed system.
Hangers, brackets, cable-tray supports, pipe restraints and duct supports should be coordinated with the service designer's requirements and the relevant fire-stopping evidence. The required distance between the seal and the first service support should also be checked.
Before production work accelerates, install representative benchmarks for the principal recurring penetration types.
Benchmarks are particularly useful for:
The benchmark should be reviewed against the accepted detail by the parties identified in the inspection plan. The record should identify what was accepted, what required correction and which evidence applies.
A benchmark does not automatically demonstrate that every later installation is compliant. It provides a visible quality standard and helps expose design, access and workmanship problems while they are still relatively straightforward to correct.
Inspection stages should be agreed before installation begins and included within the construction programme.
Depending on the system and project, hold points may include:
The project should identify who completes each inspection, what evidence is required and who has authority to release the area for closure.
A permit-to-penetrate process can provide a practical method for controlling new openings, confirming design information and preventing unrecorded services from being added to completed compartment lines.
The evidence standard should be agreed at procurement stage rather than reconstructed at the end of the project.
For each penetration, the required record will commonly include:
Photographs should provide both context and detail. A close-up image with no reliable location reference provides weak evidence. A room-wide photograph with no clear view of the installation is equally limited.
Records should be linked to the penetration schedule and current drawings so the final information can be searched, understood and maintained.
Regulation 38 of the Building Regulations requires relevant fire safety information to be provided to the relevant dutyholder in applicable buildings.
Approved Document B explains that this information should be sufficient to help the relevant dutyholder understand and implement the building's fire safety strategy, maintain its fire safety systems and carry out an effective fire risk assessment.
Depending on the building and scope of work, the penetration schedule, as-built drawings, accepted system details, inspection records and remedial history may therefore form an important part of the final fire safety information.
A robust submittal should include:
Installation should pause when the actual condition differs materially from the accepted detail or supporting evidence.
| Site condition | Required action |
|---|---|
| The wall or floor construction differs from the accepted detail | Confirm the actual construction and obtain a suitable revised detail before installation. |
| The opening is oversized, irregular or damaged | Assess the opening against the system limitations and agree any repair or redesign. |
| The service material or diameter has changed | Review whether the evidence covers the revised service. |
| The pipe insulation differs from the proposed specification | Review the insulation material, thickness and continuity against the proposed system. |
| Minimum spacing or edge distances cannot be achieved | Recoordinate the services or obtain a suitable alternative system. |
| An additional service has been introduced | Review the complete opening as a new condition rather than assuming the existing detail remains suitable. |
| The service support arrangement differs | Confirm the revised supports with the service designer and penetration-system requirements. |
| The installation is accessible from only one side | Confirm that the proposed system and installation method permit the actual access condition. |
| Products or components from different systems are proposed | Do not create an unverified hybrid system. Refer the proposal for competent technical review. |
Building work on higher-risk buildings may be subject to specific change-control requirements.
The government's guidance on making changes to a higher-risk building project explains the processes for recordable, notifiable and major changes.
Project teams should establish whether a change to a compartment wall, service route, penetration arrangement or associated fire safety information affects the approved design and which change-control procedure applies.
Major changes require approval from the Building Safety Regulator before the related work proceeds. Notifiable changes must also be dealt with through the prescribed process before the affected work is carried out.
Appropriate project-specific advice should be obtained rather than assuming an apparently minor site alteration falls outside the controlled-change process.
Illustrative example
The coordinated detail shows a single cable tray passing through a flexible fire-resisting wall. Before installation, additional data cables and an insulated pipe are added to the proposed route.
The opening can no longer be treated as the original cable-tray detail. The service arrangement, opening size, spacing, support requirements and proposed penetration-sealing system must be reviewed as a mixed-service condition.
Resolving the change during coordination allows the route or system to be revised before the opening is formed. Discovering it after the wall and services are complete is likely to create more disruptive and expensive remedial work.
A system is selected only after the opening and service arrangement have already been fixed.
The accepted detail does not identify the actual substrate, service, dimensions, supports or evidence limitations.
The service material, insulation, wall build-up or proposed product is changed without technical review.
Additional services are introduced until the required spacing, annular gaps or seal dimensions can no longer be achieved.
The service support arrangement is incompatible with the penetration system or leaves loads acting on the seal.
Each trade assumes another party is responsible for the openings, system selection, technical review, inspection or evidence.
The first meaningful inspection takes place after ceilings, risers or finishes have restricted access.
The project attempts to identify locations, systems and installation details after the work can no longer be properly viewed.
Fire stopping coordination should begin during design and M&E coordination, before builders' work openings, service routes and supports are fixed.
The earlier the interfaces are resolved, the less likely the project is to depend on disruptive remedial work or unsupported site decisions.
Responsibility depends on the project appointments, procurement route and design responsibility matrix.
The client must make suitable arrangements and appoint competent people. Each designer remains responsible for the compliance of their own design work. The principal designer coordinates design work for compliance but is not automatically the specialist designer of every penetration detail.
Contractors remain responsible for ensuring the building work they carry out complies with the relevant requirements, while the principal contractor plans, manages, monitors and coordinates the building work.
The project should state who defines the performance, selects the system, reviews the evidence, coordinates the opening and service, installs the detail and verifies the completed work.
No. Suitability depends on the wall or floor construction, service type, service dimensions, insulation, opening, annular space, orientation, supports and required fire performance.
Each actual condition must fall within the scope of the evidence supporting the selected system.
No. A product datasheet may describe a product generally, but it does not normally demonstrate that a specific project condition is covered.
The submittal should identify the complete proposed system, the applicable supporting evidence, the actual construction and the installation limitations.
Work should pause at the affected location and the condition should be referred through the project's technical review and change-control process.
The issue should be recorded, a suitable revised detail or assessment obtained, the required acceptance secured and the decision retained with the installation record.
Confirm that each penetration is uniquely identified, complete, installed to the accepted detail, properly supported, accessible for inspection and supported by the required evidence.
Defects, incomplete installations and missing records should be resolved before access is restricted.
Building control involvement does not remove the duties of clients, designers, contractors, principal designers or principal contractors.
The project team remains responsible for ensuring that the design and building work comply with the applicable requirements and that changes are properly managed.
Effective fire stopping begins with coordinated information, realistic installation details, suitable supporting evidence and clearly assigned responsibilities.
When compartment lines, service routes, openings, supports, inspection stages and handover records are resolved before installation, the project is better placed to reduce defects, delays and uncertainty at completion.
Midsummer Fire Protection supports commercial contractors and property teams with fire stopping installation, compartmentation surveys and evidence-led remedial work across London and the UK.
For specialist passive fire protection support on an upcoming fit-out, refurbishment or new-build programme, contact Midsummer Fire Protection to discuss the design information, site conditions and delivery requirements before work begins.
Guidance and project requirements can change. Always confirm the legislation, Approved Document edition, transitional arrangements and project-specific approvals applicable to the work.
