Fire Technology, 58, 3405–3437, 2022

Ó 2022 Crown
Manufactured in The United States
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-022-01312-4

Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire

Resistance of Walls: Results, Research
Gaps and Design Guidelines

Mohamed A. Sultan *, Construction Research Centre, National Research

Council Canada, Ottawa, Canada

Received: 16 August 2021/Accepted: 31 July 2022/Published online: 9 September 2022

Abstract. The National research council Canada conducted three major fire resis-
tance studies on the interior party walls, interior fire separation walls and exterior
walls. The fire resistance results of these studies were published over the past three
decades and the publications were short in suggesting design guidelines for praction-
ers’ use and gaps for future research. This paper summaries the fire resistance results
of 35 full-scale wall tests, suggests design guidelines and identifies future research
gaps for interior party walls, interior fire separation walls and exterior walls. The
result summary includes the effect of different design parameters on the fire resistance
performance of wall assemblies such as the stud type and spacing, number of stud
rows, number of gypsum board layers and thickness, mid-height blocking, resilient
channels installation and spacing, screws spacing for attaching gypsum board to
either wall faming or resilient channels, insulation type and exterior wall sheathing
type on the fire resistance of loadbearing and non-loadbearing wall assemblies. The
summary results was used as the basis for suggesting design guidelines for praction-
ers’ use and identifying gaps for future research to improve the fire resistance perfor-
mance of wall assemblies. For example, the use of a reduced screw spacing from
406 mm o.c. to 203 mm o.c. in the gypsum board field and from 406 mm o.c. to
150 mm o.c. at the board joints was suggested for future research to keep the protec-
tive gypsum board layer attached to studs or resilient channels longer for a better fire
resistance performance of wall assemblies. Also, fire resistance design guidelines are
suggested, for examples, the use of rock fibre insulation for non-load bearing interior
party walls to achieve 1.5-h fire resistance, the use of cellulose fibre insulation for
loadbearing fire separation walls to achieve 2-h fire resistance rating and the use of
reduced screw spacing in attaching the gypsum board to wall framing from 406 mm
o.c. to 203 mm o.c. for loadbearing exterior wall assembly with gypsum board glass
mat sheathing to expand the fire resistance rating from non-useful 30-min to a useful
code compliance 45-min fire resistance rating assembly. Additional suggested exam-
ples for future research gaps and design guidelines are also provided.

Keywords: Fire resistance, Party walls, Fire separation walls, exterior walls, Research gaps, Design
guidelines

*Correspondence should be addressed to: Mohamed A. Sultan, E-mail: Mohamed.sultan@nrc-cn-

rc.gc.ca

1
3406 Fire Technology 2022

1. Introduction
Light-weight framed wall constructions are widely used across Canada and the
USA and required to exhibit acceptable fire resistance ratings (FRR) and sound
transmission classification (STC) ratings prescribed in Part 9 and Part 5 of the
National Building Code (NBC). The fire resistance requirements are prescribed as
fire barriers/separation to contain the fire within the compartment of fire origin
and also to provide safety for the occupants and firefighters during the evacuation
and rescue operations, respectively. In designing walls to comply with the FRR
requirements, the construction industry has a few options for considerations such
as conducting fire resistance tests to show code compliance, selecting assemblies
from the listing laboratories’ directories or selecting assemblies from the NBC
Part 9 tables. In the1990 NBC Edition [1], the STC rating between multi-family
dwellings was increased from 45 STC to 50 STC to meet public demands for bet-
ter sound isolation across dwellings party wall. The NBC 1990 Edition, Part 9
Appendix A listed only 13 wall assemblies with FRR and STC for users to choose
from. In 1992, there were needs not only to expand the wall listed assemblies and
provide more wall design options, but also to confirm some of the FRR ratings
and STC ratings due to the changes in building materials and construction
methodologies/practices. To meet these needs, the National Research Council
Canada (NRC) in partnership with 14 North America construction industries and
other government department’s partners carried out three major joint research
projects (JRP) on the fire resistance and sound transmission performance of wall
assemblies. The fire resistance studies included: Walls-I project [2] that was con-
ducted to determine the fire resistance for interior party walls for loadbearing
wood and non-loadbearing steel studs assemblies in multi-family dwellings with
45-min and 1-h FRR, Walls-II project [3] that was conducted to determine the fire
resistance for interior party walls in multi-family dwellings with loadbearing steel
studs assemblies with 45-min, 1-h and 1.5-h FRR and the Fire Resistance Perfor-
mance of building Assemblies (FRPBA) project [4] that was conducted to deter-
mine the fire resistance of wood studs interior fire separation wall assemblies with
1.5-h and 2-h FRR and wood studs exterior wall assemblies with 45-min and 1-h
FRR. Walls-I and Walls-II projects were conducted in parallel with two major
studies on the acoustic isolation for party wall assemblies. The summary results of
fire resistance tests conducted in the period of 1992 to 2019 are presented in this
paper, however, the results of sound transmission studies are giving in Refs. [5, 6].
The sound transmission studies demonstrated that, the major factor to consider in
construction walls, to control sound transmission, was the isolation of the gypsum
board layers from the studs on each side of wall. These studies also reported other
important design parameters, to improve the sound reduction across walls, such
as the construction with double studs (wood or steel), stagger studs, resilient chan-
nels installation, more number of gypsum board layer on each side, bigger wall
cavity depth, studs and resilient channels installation spaced at 610 mm o.c., how-
ever, it was reported that, the insulation type, unlike for fire resistance perfor-
mance of wall assembles, had a relatively minor effect on the ability of wall to
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3407

control sound transmission. The objectives of the joint research projects were to
generate knowledge on the fire resistance of loadbearing and non-loadbearing
wood and steel studs wall assemblies as well as on the sound isolation of different
designs wall assemblies constructed with generic materials for the purpose of
assigning FRR and STC ratings in future NBC Part 9 tables’ development. Dur-
ing the fire resistance and sound performance studies for wall assemblies, the
results showed that, some design parameters enhances the FRR but had counter
effect on the STC ratings. In these cases, the research conducted jointly with the
NRC acoustics laboratory was geared to find out design parameters solutions that
work to enhance both the fire resistance and acoustics performance of wall assem-
blies. The generated knowledge from the JRPs were instrumental in successful
number of code change proposals for updating the wall tables in NBC Part 9 in
2000 [7], 2005 [8] and 2020 [9] Editions and as results of these code changes, the
number of wall assemblies was increased from 13 in 1990 NBC Edition to over
400 wall assemblies in 2020 NBC Edition so that, the builders, architects, and
design engineers have more wall design options in the NBC tables to select from
without the need for conducting expensive and time consuming fire resistance
tests, and also the listed assemblies with FRR and STC ratings facilitate building
approvals process. Prior to 2005, the NBC adopted the prescriptive code approach
that uses standards requirement for constructing assemblies, however, in 2005, the
NBC adopted the objective-based approach to facilitate innovations and cost
effectiveness for assemblies that show performance at least the same or better to
the prescriptive code approach. Walls-I and Walls-II were conducted for prescrip-
tive code approach development, however, the FRPBA project, was conducted
with a mix use of standard and non-standard construction requirements for the
use in objective-based code designs approach. As the JRP studies mentioned
above targeted the Canadian code changes development, the available literature
with similar design such as the use of maximum design load, resilient channels
installation and use of generic materials was limited for comparison purposes,
however, the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada (ULC) published listings for
1-h FRR: design W308 [10] on exterior walls with glass mat gypsum board
sheathing and design U356 [11] on exterior walls with Oriented Strand Board
(OSB) sheathing where both listings were based on restricted load of 82% of max-
imum design load while the FRPBA study on exterior walls [4] was conducted
using the maximum design load and results provided 45-min FRR for both assem-
blies with either gypsum board glass mat or OSB sheathings. The fire resistance
results of the studies mentioned above [2–4] were published over the past three
decades and publications were short in identifying gaps for future research or sug-
gesting design guidelines for practioners’ use. To accomplish these short fall, the
summary results presented in this paper was instrumental in suggesting design
guidelines for practioners’ used and identifying future research gaps to improve
the fire resistance of wall assemblies for cost effective design purposes.
3408 Fire Technology 2022

2. Test Conditions and Procedures

The fire resistance tests in the above mentioned studies were carried out in accor-
dance with CAN/ULC-S101 standard [12]. Details on the loadbearing device used
to apply the superimposed load on the wall assemblies are given in Ref. [13].
Unlike, the interior fire separation and exterior walls, the party wall assemblies
were instrumented with additional thermocouples and deflection gauges other than
those required by the standard to provide data for fire resistance mathematical
modeling development calibration. Superimposed load for each assembly studied
are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and the load calculations were based on the maxi-
mum design load capacity required by the fire resistance standard [12]. Fire resis-
tance tests were carried out until the structural failure occurred and the failure
criteria used in assemblies testing were derived from the standard [12] in Sect. 6.4
‘‘Determination of Fire Endurance Period’’.

3. Description of Wall Assemblies

Details on the materials, construction of assemblies and instrumentation are given
in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below and in References [2–4, 14]. Three types of insulation
in wall cavity were considered: glass fibre (GFI), rock fibre (RFI) and cellulose
fibre (CFI).

4. Brief Summary Results, Gaps for Future Research

and Design Guidelines
To facilitate readability navigation, this paper is presented in three main sections
titled: brief summary results, design guidelines and gaps for future research where
each section is subsequently divided into three subsections: interior party walls,
interior fire separation walls and exterior walls.

4.1. Brief Summary Results

Brief summary results for interior party walls, interior fire separation and exterior
walls assemblies: 1-PW to 22-PW, 1-FS to 7-FS and 1-EW to 6-EW, respectively,
are presented below, however, details results analysis are also provided in Refer-
ences [2–4, 15, 16]. This summary was necessary to be provided in this paper as it
was instrumental in the development of future research gaps and design guide-
lines.

4.1.1. Interior Party Walls Twenty-two interior party wall assemblies were studied
30 years ago, the temperature and deflection measurements row data was not
available in a format that can be used in parametric comparison purposes. Also,
the party walls studies were conducted purposely for the prescriptive approach of
NBC code development changes and, therefore, comparison with available litera-
ture was limited. Two types of the gypsum board arrangements were studied for
interior party walls: asymmetrical (1 9 2) with one layer of gypsum board on one
Table 1
Design Parameters and Fire Resistance Test Results for Interior Party Wall Assemblies

Membrane(s) on fire-ex- Membrane(s) on non-ex-

Test no. Stud type Stud size Stud spacing posed side posed side Resilient channels

1-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 610 mm o.c One-layer Two-layers –

12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm Type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board
2-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 610 mm o.c One-layer Two-layers –
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board
3-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 610 mm o.c One-layer Two-layers –
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board
4-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 610 mm o.c One-layer Two-layers –
12.7 mm Type 9 12.7 mm Type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board
5-PW Steel 38 mm 9 89 mm 610 mm o.c One-layer Two-layers –
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 gypsum Board
gypsum board
6-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers Exposed side spaced at
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
7-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers Exposed side spaced at
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls

8-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers Exposed side spaced at

12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
9-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers Exposed side spaced at
12.7 mm Type 9 12.7 mm Type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
10-PW Wood 38 mm 9 89 mm 406 mm o.c One-layer 2 layers Exposed side spaced at
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm
gypsum board board
3409
Table 1
continued
3410

Test no. Stud type Stud size Stud spacing Membrane(s) on fire-ex- Membrane(s) on non-ex- Resilient channels
posed side posed side

11-PW Wood 38 mm 9 89 mm 406 mm o.c One-layers 2 layers Exposed side spaced at

12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
12-PW Wood 38 mm 9 89 mm 406 mm o.c One-layer Two-layers Unexposed side spaced at
12.7 mm Type 9 12.7 mm Type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
13-PW Wood 38 mm 9 89 mm 406 mm o.c One-layer Two-layers Unexposed side spaced at
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
14-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers –
12.7 mm Type 9 12.7 mm Type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board
15-PW Wood 38 mm 9 89 mm 406 mm o.c One-layer 2 layers Exposed side spaced at
15.9 mm type 9 15.9 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
16-PW Wood 38 mm 9 89 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers Exposed side spaced at
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
17-PW Steel Double row 406 mm o.c Two-layer 2 layers –
38 mm 9 90 mm 12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board
18-PW Wood Double row 406 mm o.c One-layers Two-layers –
38 mm 9 89 mm 12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board
19-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 610 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers Exposed side spaced at
12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum 406 mm o.c
gypsum board board
Fire Technology 2022
Table 1
continued

Test no. Stud type Stud size Stud spacing Membrane(s) on fire-ex- Membrane(s) on non-ex- Resilient channels
posed side posed side

20-PW Steel 38 mm 9 90 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers –

12.7 mm regular 12.7 mm regular gypsum
gypsum board board
21-PW Wood 38 mm 9 89 mm 406 mm o.c Two-layers Two-layers –
12.7 mm regular 12.7 mm regular gypsum
gypsum board board
22-PW Steel Double row 406 mm o.c Two-layer 2 layers –
38 mm 9 89 mm 12.7 mm type 9 12.7 mm type 9 gypsum
gypsum board board

Test no. Stud type Insulation type and thickness Applied load (kN) Time to failure (min) Mode of assembly failure

1-PW Steel – – 65 Thermal

2-PW Steel GFI – 65 Flame/structural
89 mm
3-PW Steel RFI – 100 Flame/structural
89 mm
4-PW Steel CFI* – 62 Flame/structural
89 mm
5-PW Steel RFI* – 60 Thermal
89 mm
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls

6-PW Steel – 78.4 77 Thermal

7-PW Steel CFI 78.4 71 Thermal
89 mm
8-PW Steel GFI 78.4 56 Thermal
89 mm
9-PW Steel RFI 78.4 59 Thermal
89 mm
10-PW Wood GFI 68.0 51 Structural
89 mm
3411
Table 1
continued
3412

Test no. Stud type Insulation type and thickness Applied load (kN) Time to failure (min) Mode of assembly failure

11-PW Wood RFI 68.0 52 Structural

89 mm
12-PW Wood CFI* 68.0 56 Structural
89 mm
13-PW Wood RFI 68.0 58 Structural
89 mm
14-PW Steel – 78.4 83 Structural
15-PW Wood GFI 67.0 52 Structural
89 mm
16-PW Wood GFI 68.0 79 Structural
89 mm
17-PW Steel – 156.7 100 Structural
18-PW Wood GFI 156.7 51 Structural
2x89 mm
19-PW Steel RFI 52.4 74 Structural
89 mm
20-PW Steel – – 63 Thermal
21-PW Wood – – 65 Thermal
22-PW Steel – 156.7 102 Structural

GFI glass fibre insulation, RFI rock fibre insulation 615 mm wide, RFI* rock fibre insulation 548 mm wide, CFI dry-blown cellulose fibre insulation, CFI* water base wet spray
cellulose fibre insulation
Fire Technology 2022
Table 2
Design Parameters and Fire Resistance Test Results for Interior Fire Separation Wall Assemblies

Time
Membrane(s) Membrane(s) Insulation Applied to fail- Mode of
Test Stud Stud on fire-ex- on non-ex- Membrane fastener spac- Resilient type and load ure assembly
no. type Stud size spacing posed side posed side ing channels thickness (kN) (min:s) failure

1-FS Wood 38 mm 9 610 mm 2 layers 2 layers Base layer at 610 mm Exposed GFI 49.5 103:45 Structural
89 mm o.c 15.9 mm type 15.9 mm type o.c. and face layer at side 89 mm
9 gypsum 9 gypsum 305 mm o.c. on spaced at
board board exposed and non-ex- 610 mm
posed sides*
2-FS Wood 38 mm 9 610 mm 2 layers 2 layers Base layer at 610 mm Exposed RFI 49.5 109:50 Structural
89 mm o.c 15.9 mm type 15.9 mm type o.c. and face layer at side 89 mm
9 gypsum 9 gypsum 305 mm o.c. on spaced at
board board exposed and non-ex- 610 mm
posed sides*
3-FS Wood Double 610 mm 2 layers 2 layers Base layer at 610 mm Exposed RFI 99.5 113:54 Structural
row of o.c 15.9 mm type 15.9 mm type o.c. and face layer at side 89 mm in
38 mm 9 9 gypsum 9 gypsum 305 mm o.c. on spaced at both
89 mm board board exposed and non-ex- 610 mm rows
(Blocked) posed sides*
4-FS Wood 38 mm 9 610 mm 2 layers 2 layers Base layer at 610 mm Exposed RFI 49.5 119:28 Structural
89 mm o.c 15.9 mm type 15.9 mm type o.c. and face layer at side 89 mm
(Blocked) 9 gypsum 9 gypsum 305 mm o.c. on spaced at
board board exposed and non-ex- 610 mm
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls

posed sides*
5-FS Wood Double 406 mm 2 layers 2 layers Base layer at 610 mm Exposed RFI 150.2 117:28 Structural
row of o.c 15.9 mm type 15.9 mm type o.c. and face layer at side 89 mm in
38 mm 9 9 gypsum 9 gypsum 305 mm o.c. on spaced at both
89 mm board board exposed and non-ex- 406 mm rows
(Blocked) posed sides*
3413
Table 2
continued
3414

Test Stud Stud size Stud Membrane(s) Membrane(s) Membrane fastener spac- Resilient Insulation Applied Time Mode of
no. type spacing on fire-ex- on non-ex- ing channels type and load to fail- assembly
posed side posed side thickness (kN) ure failure
(min:s)

6-FS Wood Double 406 mm 2 layers 2 layers Base layer at 610 mm Exposed CFI** 150.1 132:12 Structural
row of o.c 15.9 mm type 15.9 mm type o.c. and face layer at side Full
38 mm 9 9 gypsum 9 gypsum 305 mm o.c. on exposed spaced at Cavity
89 mm board board and non-exposed sides* 406 mm 203 mm
(Blocked)
7-FS Wood Double 406 mm 2 layers 2 layers Base layer at 610 mm Exposed 406 mm CFI** Cavity
row of o.c 15.9 mm type 15.9 mm type o.c. and face layer at Side Full 203 mm
38 mm 9 9 gypsum 9 gypsum 305 mm o.c. on exposed Spaced
89 mm board board and non-exposed sides* at
130.50 Struc-
150.1 tural

GFI glass fibre insulation, RFI rock fibre insulation, CFI dry-blown cellulose fibre insulation, CFI** sprayed cellulose fibre insulation (water-based mixture), CFI*** sprayed
cellulose fibre insulation (water-adhesive-based mixture)
*Maximum spacing permitted by Part 9 of 2015 NBC and Gypsum Board Application Standard
Fire Technology 2022
Table 3
Design Parameters and Fire Resistance Test Results for Exterior Walls

Gypsum
Membrane Time board
Membrane on non-ex- Insulation Applied to fail- fall-off Mode of
Stud Stud Stud on fire-ex- posed side Membrane fastener type and load ure time assembly
Test no. type size spacing posed side (sheathing) spacing thickness (kN) (min:s) (min:s) failure

1-EW Wood 38 mm 406 mm 15.9 mm 11.1 mm 406 mm o.c. on GFI 75.1 45:40 44:46 Flame Pen-
9 o.c type 9 OSB exposed side; 89 mm etration
89 mm interior (all joints 305 mm o.c. in the due to
gypsum backed) field and 152 mm deflection
board o.c. along edges on
non-exposed
sheathing side*
2-EW Wood 38 mm 406 mm 15.9 mm 15.9 mm 406 mm o.c. on GFI 75.1 41:00 41:00 Structural
9 o.c type 9 type 9 exposed and non- 89 mm
89 mm interior Gypsum exposed sheathing
gypsum Sheathing sides*
board
3-EW Wood 38 mm 406 mm 15.9 mm 11.1 mm 406 mm o.c. on RFI 75.1 55:11 51:49 Structural
9 o.c type 9 OSB exposed side; 89 mm
89 mm interior (all joints 305 mm o.c. in the
gypsum backed) field and 152 mm
board o.c. along edges on
non-exposed
sheathing side*
4-EW Wood 38 mm 406 mm 15.9 mm 15.9 mm 203 mm o.c. on CFI 75.1 59:12 56:45 Structural
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls

9 o.c type 9 type 9 exposed and non- 89 mm

89 mm interior gypsum exposed sheathing
gypsum sheathing sides
board
3415
Table 3
continued
3416

Test no. Stud Stud Stud Membrane Membrane Membrane fastener Insulation Applied Time Gypsum Mode of
type size spacing on fire-ex- on non-ex- spacing type and load to fail- board assembly
posed side posed side thickness (kN) ure fall-off failure
(sheathing) (min:s) time
(min:s)

5-EW Wood 38 mm 406 mm 15.9 mm 11.1 mm 406 mm o.c. on CFI** 75.1 46:35 44:00 Flame Pene-
9 o.c type 9 OSB exposed side; 89 mm tration
89 mm interior (all joints 305 mm o.c. in the Through
gypsum backed) field and 152 mm unexposed
board o.c. along edges on OSB
non-exposed
sheathing side*
6-EW Wood 38 mm 406 mm 15.9 mm 15.9 mm 203 mm o.c. on GFI 75.1 56:10 55:00 Flame Pene-
9 o.c type 9 type 9 exposed and non- 89 mm tration due
89 mm interior Gypsum exposed sheathing to deflec-
gypsum Sheathing sides tion
board

GFI glass fibre insulation, RFI rock fibre insulation, CFI dry-blown cellulose fibre insulation, CFI** sprayed cellulose fibre insulation (water-adhesive-based
mixture)
*Maximum spacing permitted by Part 9 of 2015 NBC and Gypsum Board Application Standards
Flame penetration failure—the appearance of flame on the unexposed side (failure criteria in Sect. 6.4, CAN/ULC S-101 standard [10]) Structural
failure—the assembly is unable to sustain the applied load during the fire test (failure criteria in Sect. 6.4, CAN/ULC S-101 standard [10])
Fire Technology 2022
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3417

side and two layers on the other and symmetrical (2 9 2) with two layers of gyp-
sum board on each side of the walls. In the asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assembles
studied, the reason for the use of two layers of gypsum board on one side was to
improve the STC ratings. However, for building code purposes, the fire resistance
of asymmetrical wall assemblies was determined on the basis of subjecting the less
number of gypsum board, conservative fire resistance approach, to furnace heat,
therefore, the single gypsum board layer side was considered as the fire exposed
side. The parameters investigated for interior party walls and their effect on the
fire resistance performance are provide below.

 Effect of insulation type on the fire resistance in non-loadbearing asymmetrical

gypsum board (1 9 2) wall assemblies with steel stud spaced at 610 mm o.c.
and without resilient channels installation

Four asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assemblies were studied to investigate the effect

of insulation type on the fire resistance. Assemblies: 1-PW was without insulation
in wall cavity, 2-PW was with GFI, 3-PW was with RFI and 4-PW was with
water base spray CFI. Design details of these assemblies are given in Table 1 and
Ref. [2]. The Assembly 1-PW provided 65 min fire resistance, Assembly 2-PW also
provided 65 min fire resistance, Assembly 3-PW provided 100 min fire resistance
and Assembly 4-PW provided 62 min fire resistance. In non-loadbearing asymmet-
rical (1 9 2) steel studs spaced at 610 mm o.c. assemblies, the installation of FRI
in wall cavity had increased significantly the fire resistance by 54% compared to
assembly without insulation or assembly with either GFI or CFI. Additional
results analysis can be found in Ref. [2]. The assembly with RFI is a good exam-
ple that shows the installation of RFI in wall cavity can achieve a substantial
increase in fire resistance and possibly also an increase in sound isolation.

 Effect of insulation type on the fire resistance of loadbearing symmetrical gyp-

sum board (2 9 2) wall assemblies with steel studs and resilient channels spaced
at 406 mm o.c. installed on the fire exposed side

Four symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assemblies were studied to investigate the effect

of insulation type on the fire resistance. Assembly 6-PW was without insulation in
wall cavity while Assembly 7-PW was with CFI dry-blown, Assembly 8-PW was
with GFI and Assembly 9-PW was with RFI. Details on the construction design
are given in Table 1 and Ref. [3]. The Assembly 6-PW provided 77 min fire resis-
tance, Assembly 7-PW provided 71 min fire resistance, Assembly 8-PW provided
56 min fire resistance and Assembly 9-PW provided 59 min fire resistance. While
having insulation in wall cavity improves the sound isolation, the installation of
insulation in symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assemblies did reduce the fire resistance by
27%, 8% and 23%, respectively, in comparison to an assembly without insulation
in wall cavity. Additional results analysis are provided in Ref. [3].

 Effect of insulation type, GFI vs RFI, on the fire resistance of loadbearing

asymmetrical gypsum board (1 9 2) wall assemblies with wood stud and resi-
3418 Fire Technology 2022

8 STUDS @ 400.0 mm O.C.

Vertical unbacked
Gypsum Board
Joint
gypsum board joint

8 RESILIENT CHANNELS @ 400 mm O.C.

3048 mm

3658mm
Screws @ 300 mm on Resilient Channels 50 mm

Figure 1. Gypsum boards layout on the fire exposed single layer

side of asymmetrical (1 3 2) assembly with one vertical gypsum board
joint not connected to stud framing [2].

lient channels spaced at 406 mm o.c. and resilient channels installed on the fire
exposed side (gypsum board single layer side)

Two asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assemblies: Assembly 10-PW with GFI and

Assembly 11-PW with RFI, were studied to investigate the effect of insulation
type on the fire resistance where the resilient channels installed on the single gyp-
sum board layer fire exposed side. Details on the construction design is given in
Table 1 and Ref. [2]. The Assembly 10-PW provided 51 min fire resistance while
Assembly 11-PW provide 52 min fire resistance. The reason for not having a
higher fire resistance for the assembly with RFI compared to an assembly with
GFI was due to the presence of unprotected gypsum board joint on the fire
exposed side that created by the installation of resilient channels as shown in Fig-
ure 1. Additional results analysis can be found in Ref. [2].

 Effect of insulation type on the fire resistance in loadbearing asymmetrical

(1 9 2) wall assemblies with wood stud and resilient channels spaced at 406 mm
o.c., and resilient channels installed on the unexposed gypsum board double
layer side

Two asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assemblies: Assembly 12-PW with CFI dry

blown and Assembly 13-PW with RFI, were studied to investigate the effect of
insulation type on the fire resistance where the resilient channels were installed on
the unexposed double gypsum board layer side. Details on the construction design
is given in Table 1 and Ref. [2]. The Assembly 12-PW provided 56 min fire resis-
tance while Assembly 13-PW provide 58 min fire resistance. Additional results
analysis is given in Ref. [2]. In loadbearing asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assembly
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3419

with wood studs and resilient channels installed on the double gypsum bard layer
unexposed side, the effect of insulation type of either CFI dry-blown insulation or
RFI on the fire resistance is insignificant.

 Effect of insulation width between steel studs on the fire resistance of non-load
bearing asymmetrical (192) wall assembly

Two non-loadbearing asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assemblies: Assemblies 3-PW

(RFI 615 mm width, tight fit between studs) and 5-PW (RFI 548 mm width, loose
fit between studs) constructed without resilient channels installation were studied
to investigate the effect of RFI insulation width between steel studs on the fire
resistance. Details on the construction design is given in Table 1 and Ref. [2]. In
non-loadbearing wall assembly with steel studs spaced at 610 mm o.c., test results
showed that the assembly with 548 mm width (loose fit) provided 60 min fire
resistance while the assembly with 615 mm width (standard fit) provided 100 min
fire resistance. Additional results discussion is provided in Reference [2]. These
results show that, to maximize the benefits of RFI installation on the fire resis-
tance, it is important to have the insulation installed tightly between the steel
studs.

 Effect of resilient channel installation on the fire resistance in symmetrical (292)

wood stud walls

Two loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assemblies: Assemblies 6-PW with

resilient channels installation on the fire exposed side and 14-PW (without resilient
channels installation) were studied to investigate the effect of resilient channels
installation on the fire resistance. Assembly 6-PW and 14-PW were constructed
with steel studs and without insulation in wall cavity. Details on the construction
design are given in Table 1 and Ref. [2]. Assembly 6-PW provided 77 min fire
resistance while Assembly 14-PW provided 83 min fire resistance. These results
showed that the fire resistance in assembly with resilient channel installation was
reduced by about 7% compared to an assembly without resilient channel installa-
tion. Additional results discussion is provided in Ref. [2]. If the assembly is not
design for acoustics sound reduction, for better fire resistance performance avoid
the use of resilient channels.

 Effect of resilient channels location in asymmetrical assembly (1 9 2) on the fire

resistance of loadbearing wood stud walls

Two loadbearing asymmetrical (1 9 2) wood stud wall assemblies: Assembly 11-

PW with resilient channels installed on the single layer of gypsum board fire
exposed side and Assembly 13-PW with resilient channels installed on the unex-
posed gypsum board double layers side were studied to investigate the effect of
resilient channels location on the fire resistance. Details on the construction design
is given in Table 1 and Ref. [2]. The Assembly 11-PW provided 52 min fire resis-
tance while Assembly 13-PW provided 58 min fire resistance. Having the resilient
3420 Fire Technology 2022

channels installed on the single layer side decreased the fire resistance of the
assembly by about 10% compared to an assembly with resilient channel installed
on the double layers side. This reduction in the fire resistance could be caused by
having unbacked vertical gypsum board joint, shown in Figure 1 above, as
e9plained in Ref. [2]. Therefore, the location of resilient channels plays an impor-
tant role in the fire resistance performance of asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assembly.

 Effect of gypsum board thickness on fire resistance of asymmetrical wall assem-

blies with resilient channels installed on fire exposed side

Two loadbearing asymmetrical (1 9 2) wood stud wall assemblies: Assembly 10-

PW with gypsum board 12.7 mm thick and Assembly 15-PW with gypsum board,
15.9 mm thick, were studied to investigate the effect of gypsum board thickness
on the fire resistance. Details on the construction design are given in Table 1 and
Ref. [2]. The Assembly 10-PW provided 51 min fire resistance while Assembly 15-
PW provide 52 min. The reasons for not having a tangible increase in fire resis-
tance when the gypsum board thickness increased from 12.7 mm to 15.9 mm is
caused by the installation of resilient channels on the single layer side with unpro-
tected vertical gypsum board joint shown in Figure 1 above and e9plained in Ref.
[2].

 Effect of number of gypsum board layers on fire resistance of an asymmetrical

(1&2) vs a symmetrical (2&2) wood stud assemblies with resilient channels
installed on the fire exposed side

Two assemblies: asymmetrical (1 9 2) Assembly 13-PW with one layer of gyp-

sum board on the fire exposed side and symmetrical (2 9 2) Assembly 16-PW
with two layers of gypsum board on the fire exposed side were studied to investi-
gate the effect of gypsum board number of layers on the fire resistance. Details on
the construction design are given in Table 1 and Ref. [2]. The Assembly 13-PW
with one layer of gypsum board on the fire exposed side provided 58 min fire
resistance while Assembly 16-PW with two layers on the fire exposed side pro-
vided 79 min fire resistance. In loadbearing wood studs wall asymmetrical (1 9 2)
gypsum board arrangement and RFI in wall cavity and resilient channels installed
on the unexposed side and symmetrical (2 9 2) assemblies gypsum board arrange-
ment and GFI in wall cavity and resilient channels installed, on the fire exposed
side, the effect of having a second layer of Type 9 gypsum on the fire exposed
side increased the fire resistance by at least 36%. Therefore, the addition of a sec-
ond layer of gypsum board increase significantly the fire resistance. Additional
results analysis is provided in Ref. [2].

 Effect of steel stud row on fire resistance (single row vs double row) in load-
bearing symmetrical steel stud wall assemblies without insulation or resilient
channels
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3421

Two symmetrical (2 9 2) gypsum board arrangement wall assemblies con-

structed with steel studs: Assemblies 14-PW (single-row) and 19-PW (double-row)
were studied to investigate the effect of the number of stud rows on the fire resis-
tance in loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly. Details on the construc-
tion design are given in Table 1 and Ref. [3]. Assebly14-PW provided 83 min fire
resistance while Assembly 19-PW provided 100 min fire resistance even though the
double rows were not loaded separately. The results showed that the wall with
two rows of steel studs provide 20% more fire resistance compared to wall with
one row of steel studs. Additional results analysis is provided in Ref. [3].

 Effect of steel stud spacing in loadbearing assemblies with two layers of gypsum
board on both the fire exposed and unexposed sides

Two symmetrical (2 9 2) gypsum board arrangement wall assemblies: Assembly

9-PW (steel studs spaced at 406 mm o.c.) and Assembly 20-PW (steel studs spaced
at 610 mm o.c.) were studied to investigate the effect of steel stud spacing on the
fire resistance in loadbearing assemblies constructed with two layers of Type 9
gypsum board on each side, resilient channel installed on the fire exposed side and
spaced at 406 mm o.c. and RFI in wall cavity. Details on the construction design
are given in Table 1 and Ref. [3]. Assembly 9-PW with studs spaced at 406 mm
o.c. provided 59 min fire resistance while Assembly 20-PW with studs spaced at
610 mm o.c. provided 74 min fire resistance. In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2)
gypsum board arrangement wall assembly with steel studs, the Assembly with
studs spaced at 610 mm o.c. provided 25% more fire resistance compared to a
similar wall assembly but with steel studs spaced sat 406 mm o.c. [3]. Additional
results analysis can be found in Ref. [3].

 Effect of stud type (wood vs steel) on the fire resistance in non-loadbearing

symmetrical wall assemblies (2 9 2) with two layers of regular gypsum board
on both the fire exposed and unexposed sides

Two symmetrical (2 9 2) gypsum board arrangement wall assemblies: Assem-

blies 21-PW (steel studs) and 22-PW (wood studs) were studied to investigate the
effect of studs type (wood vs steel) in non-loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) gyp-
sum board arrangement wall assembly without installation of resilient channels or
insulation in wall cavity. Details on the construction design are given in Table 1
and Refs. [2, 3]. The Assembly 21-PW with steel stud provided 63 min fire resis-
tance while Assembly 4-PW with wood studs provided 65 min fire resistance.
Additional results discussion is provided in Refs. [2, 3]. In a non-loadbearing wall
assembly with asymmetrical (2 9 2) gypsum board arrangements constructed with
either steel or wood studs spaced at 610 mm o.c. and two layers of regular gyp-
sum board on both the fire exposed and unexposed sides, and without resilient
channels or insulation in wall cavity, the fire resistance results showed that the
effect of stud type of steel or wood is insignificant.
3422 Fire Technology 2022

4.1.2. Interior Fire Separation Walls Seven loadbearing interior fire separation
wood stud wall assemblies (1-FS to 7-FS) were studied to investigate the effect of
different design parameters on the fire resistance for a single- and double-row of
wood stud walls. Details on the construction design for these assemblies are given
in Table 2 and Ref. [4]. A brief summary results for the design parameters investi-
gated followed by a comparison of performance in assemblies with a single- and
double-row of wood stud walls are provided below.
4.1.2.1. Wall Assemblies with a Single-Row of Wood Studs Three symmetrical
(292) fire separation wall tests, Assemblies 1-FS, 2-FS and 4-FS with a single-row
of wood studs, were conducted to investigate the effect of insulation type and
mid-height blocking on the fire resistance. A brief summary results is provided
below and additional results analysis can be found in Refs. [4, 15].

 Effect of insulation type (glass fibre vs rock fibre) on the fire resistance of wood
stud wall assemblies with two layers of Type 9 gypsum board on both the fire-
exposed and unexposed sides and resilient channels on fire-exposed side

Assembly 1-FS with GFI and Assembly 2-FS with RFI were studied to investi-
gate the effect of insulation type on the fire resistance. The Assembly 1-FS pro-
vided 103 min 45 s and Assembly 2-FS provided 109 min 50 s fire resistance.
Comparison of temperature measurement is given in References [4], however,
comparison of deflection measurement is presented in Figure 2. The results
showed that the deflection in both assemblies started approximately at 60 min fol-
lowed by a similar increase in deflection for up to 90 min and then followed by a
more rapid increase in deflection in Assembly 1-FS as results of the gypsum board
fell-off earlier which exposed the wall cavity to furnace heat and caused more
rapid deterioration and melting of the GFI and more burning of wood studs com-
pared to Assembly 2-FS with RFI. Additional results analysis can be found in
Refs. [4, 15].
The Installation of RFI improved slightly the fire resistance of a wall assembly
by 6 min (6%) compared to an assembly with GFI, therefore, the effect of insula-
tion type GFI vs RFI on fire resistance is insignificant.

 Effect of mid-height blocking installation on the fire resistance of wall assem-

blies with two layers of Type 9 gypsum board on both the fire-exposed and
unexposed sides, rock fibre insulation in wall cavity and resilient channels on
fire-exposed side

Assembly 2-FS (without mid-height blocking) and Assembly 4-FS (with mid-
height blocking) were studied to investigate the effect of mid-height blocking
installation on the fire resistance. The Assembly 2-FS provided 109 min 50 s fire
resistance while Assembly 4-FS provided 119 min 28 s fire resistance. Comparison
of temperature measurement distributions is giving in Ref. [15], however, the com-
parison of the wall deflection measurement for Assemblies 2-FS and 4-Fs is pre-
sented in Figure 3. The results show that in both assemblies, the deflection started
approximately at 60 min and followed by an increase in deflection, however, in
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3423

Elapsed Time (min)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0

-5
Deflection, max (cm)

-10

-15

-20

-25
Assembly 1-FS Assembly 2-FS

Figure 2. Deflection distributions for Assembly with a single-row of

wood studs and different type of insulation, Assemblies 1-FS (GFI)
and 2-FS (RFI) [15].

Elapsed Time (min)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0

-5
Deflection, max (cm)

-10

-15

-20

-25
Assembly 2-FS Assembly 4-FS

Figure 3. Deflection distributions for Assembly with a single-row of

wood studs and without mid-height blocking, 2-FS (without mid-
height blocking) and Assembly 4-FS (with mid-height blocking) [15].

assembly without mid-height blocking the deflection was higher than in assembly
with mid-height blocking due to a possible e9tra rigidity that was provided by the
mid-height blocking installation. Additional results analysis is provided in Refs.
[4, 15]. The wall assembly with mid-height blocking provided 10 min more fire
resistance compared to the wall assembly without mid-height blocking. This
10 min difference was enough to have the wall assembly with mid-height blocking
to be considered as 2-h FRR while the assembly without mid-height blocking can
only be considered to be 1.5-h FRR. Therefore, the effect of med-height blocking
installation on the fire resistance is significant.
3424 Fire Technology 2022

4.1.2.2. Wall Assemblies with a Double-Row of Wood Studs Four symmetrical (2

9 2) wall assembly: Assemblies 3-FS, 5-FS, 6-FS and 7-FS, with a double-row of
wood studs were studied to investigate the effect of studs and resilient channels
spacing, insulation type and med-height blocking. The results finding below is lim-
ited to assemblies with the same load applied on both stud rows during the entire
test duration. A future research may consider similar studies but with each row of
wood stud loaded separately and a comparison of test results can be realized. The
results of the three comparative design parameters investigated are presented as
follows:

 Effect of wood stud and resilient channel spacing (406 mm o.c. vs 610 mm o.c.)
on the fire resistance of assemblies with two layers of Type 9 gypsum board on
both the fire-exposed and unexposed sides, mid-height blocking, rock fibre insu-
lation and resilient channels installed on fire-exposed side

Assembly 3-FS (wood studs and resilient channels spaced at 610 mm o.c.) and
Assembly 5-FS (wood studs and resilient channels spaced at 406 mm o.c.) were
studied to investigate the effect of studs and resilient channels spacing on the fire
resistance. The Assembly 3-FS provided 113 min 54 s while Assembly 5-FS pro-
vided 117 min 28 s fire resistance. Comparison of temperature measurement is
given in Reference [15], however, the comparison of the wall deflection measure-
ment distributions for Assemblies 3-FS and 5-FS is presented in Figure 4. The
results show that in both assemblies, deflection started approximately at 60 min
followed by an increase in deflection in assembly 5-FS compared to Assembly 3-
FS, however, after the gypsum board fell-off approximately at 105 min, the deflec-
tion in assembly with stud and resilient channel spacing of 610 mm o.c. was only

Elapsed Time (min)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
Deflection, max (cm)

-5

-10

-15

-20
Assembly 3-FS Assembly 5-FS

Figure 4. Deflection distributions for Assemblies with a double-row

of wood studs and different stud and resilient channels spacing, 3-FS
(wood studs and resilient channels spaced at 610 mm o.c.) and 5-FS
(wood studs and resilient channels spaced at 406 mm o.c.) [15].
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3425

Elapsed Time (min)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
Deflection, max (cm)

-5

-10

-15

-20
Assembly 5-FS

Figure 5. Deflection distributions for Assemblies with a double-row

of wood studs and different type of insulation, 5-FS (RFI) and 6-FS
(sprayed CFI with water-based mixture) [15].

higher by 1% than assembly with spacing of 406 mm o.c., therefore, the effect of
wood studs and resilient channels spacing on the fire resistance is insignificant.

 Effect of insulation types/application (rock fibre vs sprayed cellulose fibre with

water-based mixture) on the fire resistance of wall assemblies with two layers of
Type 9 gypsum board on both the fire-exposed and unexposed sides, insulation
in wall cavities, mid-height blocking and both the wood studs and resilient
channels installed on fire-exposed side spaced at 406 mm o.c.

Assembly 5-FS with RFI and Assembly 6-FS with sprayed CFI with water-
based mixture were studied to investigate the effect of insulation type RFI vs CFI
on the fire resistance. Assembly 5-FS with RFI provided 117 min 28 s fire resis-
tance while Assembly 6-FS with CFI provided 132 min 12 s fire resistance. Com-
parison of temperature measurement distributions is given in Ref. [4], however,
the comparison of the wall deflection distributions for Assemblies 5-FS and 6-FS
is presented in Figure 5. The results show that in both assemblies, deflection star-
ted approximately at 60 min followed by an increase in deflection and then a
rapid deflection until the failure occurred. Additional results analysis is provided
in References [4]. The wall assembly with sprayed CFI filled the cavities between
the studs and vertical gap space between studs’ rows provided 15 min more fire
resistance compared to wall assembly with RFI batts installed only in cavities
between studs, therefore, the effect of insulation type and its application on the
fire resistance is significant.

 Effect of mid-height blocking on the fire resistance of wall assemblies with two
layers of Type 9 gypsum board on both the fire-exposed and unexposed sides,
sprayed cellulose fibre insulation with water-based mixture, and resilient chan-
nels on fire-exposed side
3426 Fire Technology 2022

Elapsed Time (min)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
Deflection, max (cm)

-5

-10

-15
Assembly 6-FS Assembly 7-FS

Figure 6. Deflection distributions for Assemblies with a double-row

of wood studs, sprayed cellulose fibre insulation with water-based
mixture and with and without mid-height blocking, 6-FS with mid-
height blocking and 7-FS without mid-height blocking [15].

Assembly No. 6-FS (with mid-height blocking) and Assembly 7-FS (without
mid-height blocking) were tested to investigate the effect of mid-height blocking
installation on the fire resistance. The Assembly 6-FS provided 132 min 12 s while
Assembly 7-FS provided 130 min 50 s fire resistance. Comparison of temperature
measurement distributions is given in Ref. [15], however, comparison of the wall
deflection distributions for Assemblies 6-FS and 7-FS is presented in Figure 6.
The results show that in both assemblies, the deflection started approximately at
60 min followed by a slight increase in deflection in both assemblies up to
116 min and then followed by a rapid deflection until the failure occurred. Addi-
tional results discussion is provided in Ref. [15]. In wall assembly with double-row
of wood studs on a separate plates, under the same load during the entire test
duration, the wall assembly with mid-height blocking provided only about 1 min
more fire resistance compared to wall assembly without mid-height blocking,
therefore, unlike the case in single row of wood studs, the effect of mid-height
installation in the wall assembly on fire resistance is insignificant.

 Effect of wood stud rows (single vs double) on the fire resistance of wall assem-
blies with two layers of Type 9 gypsum board on both the fire-exposed and
unexposed sides, rock fibre insulation, mid-height blocking and resilient chan-
nels on the fire-exposed side

Assembly 3-FS (double-row of wood studs on a separate plates and under the
same load during the entire test duration) and Assembly 4-FS (single-row of wood
studs) were tested to investigate the effect of the number of wood stud rows on
the fire resistance. The Assembly 3-FS provided 113 min 54 s while Assembly 4-
FS provided fire resistance of 119 min 28 s fire resistance. The wall assembly with
a single-row of wood studs provided 6 min more fire resistance than the assembly
with a double-row of studs on a separate plates. This comparison could be miss
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3427

leading if the wall Assembly 3-FS with double-row of wood studs were to be tes-
ted with load applied separately and this could be investigated by further research.

4.1.3. Exterior Walls Six loadbearing exterior wood stud wall assemblies (Assem-
blies 1-EW to 6-EW) were studied to investigate the effect of different design
parameters on fire resistance. A brief fire resistance results and parameters investi-
gated on the effect of insulation type using standard and non-standard screw spac-
ing for attaching the gypsum board to wood studs followed by a comparison of
fire resistance using those spacing are provided below, however, detail fire resis-
tance analysis are also provide in Ref. [16]. The thermocouples locations and
deflection gauges locations, gypsum board layout, screws spacing for attaching the
gypsum board to wood studs and temperature and deflection measurements dur-
ing the fire tests for the assemblies are given in Ref. [4].

 Effect of insulation type in exterior walls with gypsum board attached to wood
studs using standard screws spacing of 406 mm o.c. and Oriented Strand Board
(OSB) sheathing

Assembly 1-EW with GFI, 3-EW with RFI and Assembly 5-EW with CFI with
water-adhesive-based mixture were studied to investigate the effect of insulation
type on the fire resistance of wall assemblies with OSB sheathing. The Assembly
1-EW provided 45 min 40 s and Assembly 3-EW provided 55 min 11 s while
Assembly 5-EW with CFI provided 46 min 35 s fire resistance. Comparison of
temperature measurement distributions is given in Ref. [16], however, comparison
of the wall deflection measurement for Assemblies 1-EW, 3-EW and 5-EW is pre-
sented in Figure 7. Comparisons of deflection results showed a slight increase in
deflection for up to 40 min and then followed by a rapid deflection increase, as
results of gypsum board fell-off, until the failure occurred. Additional results anal-
ysis is provided in Refs. [4, 16].

Elapsed time (min)

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
0.00
Deflection, max (cm)

-5.00

-10.00

-15.00

-20.00

-25.00
Assembly 1-EW Assembly 3-EW Assembly 5-EW

Figure 7. Deflection distributions for exterior wall Assemblies with

OSB sheathing and different type of insulations, 1 -EW (GFI), 3-EW
(RFI) and 5-EW (CFI) [16].
3428 Fire Technology 2022

In exterior wall assembly with one layer of Type 9 gypsum board attached to
wood studs with standard screw spacing at 406 mm o.c. and OSB sheathing, the
Assembly with RFI provided approximately 10 min more fire resistance than in
the assemblies with either cellulose or glass fibre insulation, therefore, the effect of
insulation types on the fire resistance can be considered significant.

 Effect of insulation type in exterior walls with gypsum board attached to wood
studs using non-standard screws spacing of 203 mm o.c. and Type 9 gypsum
glass mat sheathing

Assembly 4-EW with CFI dry-blown and Assembly 6-EW with GFI were stud-
ied to investigate the effect of insulation type on the fire resistance of exterior
walls with gypsum board glass mat sheathing. The Assembly 4-EW provide
59 min 10 s while Assembly 6-EW provided 56 min 10 s fire resistance. Compar-
ison of temperature measurement distributions is given in Ref. [16], however, com-
parison of the wall deflection measurement distributions for Assemblies 1-EW, 3-
EW and 5-EW is presented in Figure 8. Comparisons of deflection results showed
that the walls had a slight deflection up to 30 min as gypsum board joints opened
and followed by more increase in deflection up to 40 min as board joints became
more wide open due to the deterioration of glass fibre insulation and wood studs
and then followed by a rapid out-of-plan deflection away from the furnace when
the gypsum board fell-off until the failure occurred. Additional results analysis is
provide in Ref. [16].
In exterior wall assembly protected with one layer of Type 9 gypsum board
and one layer of Type 9 gypsum glass mat sheathing with both boards attached
to wood studs with non-standard reduced screw spacing of 203 mm o.c., the
Assembly with CFI provided 3 min more fire resistance than the assembly with
GFI, therefore, unlike performance with standard screw spacing, the effect of

Elapsed time (min)

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
0.00
Deflection, max (cm)

-5.00

-10.00

-15.00

-20.00
Assembly 6-EW Assembly 4-EW

Figure 8. Deflection distributions for exterior wall Assemblies with

gypsum sheathing and different type of insulations, 4 -EW (CFI) and
6-EW (GFI) [16].
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3429

Elapsed time (min)

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
0.00
Deflection, max (cm)

-5.00

-10.00

-15.00

-20.00
Assembly 2-EW Assembly 6-EW

Figure 9. Deflection distributions for exterior wall Assemblies with

gypsum sheathing and different screw spacing, 2 -EW with 406 mm
o.c. and 6-EW with 203 mm o.c.) [16].

insulation types GFI vs CFI on fire resistance the assembly can be considered
insignificant.

 Effect of screw spacing (standard 406 mm o.c. vs non-standard 203 mm o.c.) in

exterior walls

Assembly 2-EW with standard screw spacing at 406 mm o.c. and Assembly 6-
EW with non-standard screw spacing at 203 mm o.c. were studied to investigate
the effect of screw spacing, on the fire resistance of exterior walls. The Assembly
2-EW provided 41 min while Aassembly 6-EW provided 56 min 10 s fire resis-
tance. Comparison of temperature measurement distributions is given in Ref. [16],
however, comparison of the wall deflection measurement distributions for Assem-
blies 2-EW, 6-EW is presented in Figure 9. Comparisons of deflection results
showed that the walls had a slight deflection first at 10 min as results of gypsum
board joints start to open up and furnace heat penetrated the wall cavity followed
by further increase in deflection at 30 min as board joints became wide open due
to the deterioration of glass fibre insulation and wood studs and then followed by
a rapid out-of-plan deflection, as results of gypsum board fell-off, until the failure
occurred.
Table 3 shows that, the time difference between the gypsum board fall-off on
the fire exposed side and assembly failure for Assemblies 2-EW and 6-EW is less
than 1.17 min. Also, the gypsum board fell-off time difference between Assemblies
2-EW and 6-EW is 14 min. These results clearly indicate two key findings: first,
the gypsum board on the fire-exposed side is controlling the fire resistance of the
assembly and second, the longer the gypsum board on fire-exposed side stays-in-
place, with reduced screw spacing at 203 mm o.c., the more fire resistance of
15 min than in assembly with screw spaced at 406 mm o.c. Additional results dis-
cussion is provided in Refs. [4, 16].
3430 Fire Technology 2022

In exterior wall assembly protected with one layer of Type 9 gypsum board
and one layer of Type 9 gypsum glass mat sheathing, the assembly with reduced
non-standard screw spacing of 203 mm o.c. provided approximately 15 min more
fire resistance than the assembly with standard screw spacing at 406 mm o.c.
Therefore the effect of screw spacing (203 mm o.c. vs 406 mm o.c.) on fire resis-
tance is significant.

4.2. Design Guidelines

Based on the limited knowledge gained from the results of above mentioned pro-
jects, the followings are suggested guidelines for practioners’ use on the fire resis-
tance design of interior party walls, interior fire separation walls and exterior
walls. Should sound isolation with STC rating for the assemblies below is
required, the rating need to be determined either by testing or other available
published data in association with the description giving for FRR assembly’s
design details. For easier reading navigation, the design guidelines below are pre-
sented for three sections: interior party walls, interior fire separation walls and
exterior walls.

4.2.1. Interior Party Walls The followings are suggested design guidelines for inte-
rior party wall assemblies:
In non-loadbearing asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assembly constructed with one
layer on the fire exposed side and two layers on unexposed side Type 9 gypsum
board, no resilient channels, steel studs 38 mm by 90 mm and spaced at 610 mm
o.c., insulation include: none, GFI, RFI and CFI and Type 9 gypsum board,
12.7 mm thick, the installation of RFI in wall cavity increased significantly the fire
resistance by 54% compared to a non-insulated insulated or assembly with either
GFI or CFI. Therefore, the use of RFI to achieve 1.5-h FRR and the use of no
insulation or GFI or CFI to achieve 1-h FRR are suggested (Assemblies 3-PW, 1-
PW, 2-PW and 4-PW).
In non-loadbearing asymmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly constructed with two
layers of regular gypsum board, steel or wood studs spaced at 610 mm o.c., with-
out resilient channels insulation in wall cavity, the fire resistance results showed
that the effect of stud type of steel or wood is insignificant. Therefore, the use of
these assemblies with steel or wood studs and regular gypsum board to achieve 1-
h FRR is suggested (Assemblies 20-PW and 21-PW).
In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly with steel studs and resilient
channels spaced at 406 mm o.c., insulation in wall cavity include: none, GFI, RFI
and CFI and two layers of Type 9 on unexposed side, 12.7 mm thick, on both
the fire exposed and unexposed sides—the installation of either GFI or CFI or
RFI in wall cavity reduces the fire resistance compared to non-insulated assembly
by 27%, 8% and 23%, respectively. If sound isolation and 1-h FRR ratings are
required then, the use of either CFI or RFI in wall cavity is suggested. If sound
isolation is not required and 1-h FRR is required, then, the use of non-insulated
assembly is suggested. If sound isolation and 45-min FRR are required then, the
use of GFI is suggested (Assemblies 6-PW, 7-PW and 8-PW, 9-PW).
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3431

In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly with steel studs spaced at

406 mm o.c., with or without resilient channels spaced at 406 mm o.c., two layers
of Type 9 gypsum board, 12.7 mm thick each, on each side of the wall and no
insulation in wall cavity—the assembly without resilient channels installation pro-
vide 7% more fire resistance compared to a similar assembly but with resilient
channels installation. This assembly is an example that shows resilient channel
installation between the gypsum board and studs may improve the sound isolation
[6], however, it reduced slightly the fire resistance. If the sound isolation is not
required and 1-h FRR is required, then the assembly without resilient channels
installation is suggested (Assemblies 6-PW and 14-PW).
In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly with steel studs spaced on
406 mm or 610 mm o.c., RFI in cavity and resilient channel spaced at 406 mm
o.c.—the Assembly with steel studs spaced at 610 mm o.c. provided 25% more
fire resistance compared to a similar wall assembly but with steel studs spaced sat
406 mm o.c. The use of studs with 610 mm o.c. provide a better sound isolation
compared to assembly with spacing of 406 mm o.c. [6]. If sound isolation and 1-h
FRR ratings are required, then the assembly with steel studs spaced at 610 mm
o.c. is suggested (Assemblies 9-PW and 19-PW).
In loadbearing asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assembly with wood studs spaced at
406 mm o.c. and cavity filled with RFI, having the resilient channels installed on
the fire exposed side (single gypsum board layer) decreased the fire resistance of
the assembly by about 10% compared to an assembly with resilient channel instal-
led on the gypsum board double layer side (Assemblies 11-PW and 13-PW). The
location of resilient channels plays an important role in the fire resistance of wall
assembly and if resilient channels were to be installed for acoustical purposes to
reduce the sound transmission through the wall, placing the resilient channels on
either side of the wall had no effect on STC rating [6]. However, the gain in fire
resistance when the channels were installed on the double layer side was better
than if the channels were installed on the fire exposed side even though the assem-
bly was unable to achieve 1-h FRR. To accomplish the 1-h FRR, further research
is suggested by reducing the gypsum board screw spacing on the fire exposed side.

4.2.2. Interior Fire Separation Walls The followings are suggested design guideli-
nes for interior fire separation wall assemblies:
In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assemblies with two layers of Type 9
gypsum board, 15.9 mm thick, the Installation of RFI improved the fire resistance
by 6 min (6%) compared to GFI installation. Therefore, the use of either GFI or
RFI in wall cavity to achieve 1.5 FRR is suggested (Assemblies 1-FS and 2-FS).
In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assemblies protected with two layers of
Type 9 gypsum board, 15.9 mm thick, and RFI in wall cavity, the wall assembly
with mid-height blocking provided 10 min more fire resistance compared to the
wall assembly without mid-height blocking. Therefore, The use of med-height
blocking on the fire resistance to achieve 2-h FRR, (Assembly 4-FS) or to use the
assembly without mid-height blocking to achieve 1.5-h FRR are suggested (assem-
bly 2-FS).
3432 Fire Technology 2022

In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly with a double-row of wood

stud wall assembly, RFI in wall cavity and mid-height blocking, the assembly with
wood studs and resilient channels spaced at 406 mm o.c. added slightly 3.5 min
more fire resistance compared to assembly with wood studs and resilient channels
spaced at 610 mm o.c, where the fire resistance is 2.5 min to 6 min, respectively,
less than the 2-h FRR. Therefore, users may have a suggested choice to use these
assemblies for 1.5-h FRR (Assemblies 3-FS and 5-FS).
In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly with a double-row of wood
studs, the wall assembly with sprayed CFI provided approximetly15 min more fire
resistance compared to wall assembly with rock fibre insulation. Therefore, users
may have a suggested choice to use CFI to achieve 2-h FRR or to use RFI to
achieve 1.5-h FRR (Assemblies 5-FS and 6-FS).
In loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly with a double-row of wood
and CFI in wall cavity, the wall assembly with mid-height blocking provided only
1 min more fire resistance compared to wall assembly without mid-height block-
ing, therefore, users have a suggested choice to use mid-height blocking or not to
achieve 2-h FRR (Assemblies 6-FS and 7-FS).
The loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly protected with wood studs,
two layers of Type 9 gypsum board, rock fibre insulation in wall cavity and mid-
height blocking, the assembly with a single-row provided 6 min more fire resis-
tance than the assembly with a double-row of studs. Therefore, users may have a
suggested choice to use the assembly with a single-row to achieve 2-h FRR or to
use a double-row of wood studs and achieve 1.5-h FRR (Assemblies 3-FS and 4-
FS).

4.2.3. Exterior Walls The followings are suggested design guidelines for exterior
wall assemblies:
In exterior wall assembly protected with one layer of Type 9 gypsum board,
15.9 mm thick on the fire-exposed side and one layer of OSB, 11 mm thick,
sheathing. The Assembly with RFI provided approximately 10 min more fire resis-
tance than the assemblies with either CFI or GFI (Assemblies 1-EW, 3-EW and 5-
EW), therefore, users may have a suggested choice to use any type of insulation to
achieve 45-min FRR or alternatively, reduces the screw spacing for attaching the
gypsum board on the fire exposed side from 406 mm o.c. to 203 mm o.c. to
achieve 1-h FRR based on the fire resistance gain of 15 min in Assembly 6-EW
over Assembly 2-EW.
In exterior wall assembly protected with one layer of Type 9 gypsum board,
15.9 mm thick, on the fire exposed side and one layer of gypsum glass mat,
15.9 mm thick, sheathing on the unexposed side with screw spacing at 203 mm
o.c., the Assembly with CFI provided 3 min, slightly more fire resistance than the
assembly with GFI, therefore, users may have a suggested choice to use CFI to
achieve 1-h FRR or use GFI to achieve 45-min FRR (Assemblies 4-EW and 6-
EW).
In exterior wall assembly protected with one layer of Type 9 gypsum board,
15.9 mm thick, on the fire exposed side and one layer of Type 9 gypsum board
glass mat, 15.9 mm thick, sheathing on the unexposed side, the assembly with
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3433

reduced screw spacing of 203 mm o.c. provided approximately 15 min more fire
resistance than the assembly with maximum allowed NBC screw spacing at
406 mm o.c. Therefore, users may have a suggested choice to use screw spacing of
406 mm o.c. to achieve 30-min FRR or to use 203 mm o.c. to achieve 45-min
FRR (Assemblies 1-EW and 6-EW).

4.3. Gaps for Future Research

The fire resistance brief summary results above was instrumental in identifying the
gaps for future research to improving the fire resistance performance of interior
and exterior wall assemblies. The research gaps below are presented for three con-
struction application wall systems namely: interior party walls, interior fire separa-
tion walls and exterior walls for easier reading navigation.

4.3.1. Interior Party Walls The gaps below are suggested for future research to
improve the fire resistance performance of interior party wall assemblies as fol-
lows:
Asymmetrical (1 9 2) walls The application of the wet spray cellulose fibre on
the double layer side is suggested to determine the tangible fire resistance increase
in comparison to the available data with the application of insulation spray
applied on single gypsum board layer on the fire exposed side.
Asymmetrical (1 9 2) walls The installation of the resilient channels on the
double gypsum board side is suggested to determine the effect of insulation type
and gypsum board thickness and measure the tangible fire resistance benefit in
comparison to the available data with installation of resilient channels on the fire
exposed single layer gypsum board is suggested.
Asymmetrical (1 9 2) walls The application of screws for attaching the gypsum
board to the resilient channels or to stud framing at a reduce spacing from the
standard 406 mm o.c. to non-standard 203 mm o.c. and in some cases the spacing
need to be even further reduced to 150 mm o.c. or 100 mm o.c. at the gypsum
board joints are suggested to measure the tangible fire resistance benefit in com-
parison to available data with the application of standard screw spaced at
406 mm o.c.
Symmetrical (2 9 2) walls The application of a separate load on each of sepa-
rate rows in double-row stud assemblies is suggested to measure the tangible fire
resistance benefit in comparison to available data with load applied on both rows
simultaneously during the entire fire test.

4.3.2. Interior Fire Separation Walls The gaps below are suggested for future
research to improve the fire resistance performance of interior fire separation wall
assemblies as follows:
Single-row wood stud walls The application of screws for attaching the gypsum
board to wall framing at a reduce spacing from the standard 406 mm o.c. to non-
standard 203 mm o.c. and in some cases the spacing need to be even reduced fur-
ther to 150 mm o.c. or 100 mm o.c. at the gypsum board joints are suggested to
3434 Fire Technology 2022

measure the tangible fire resistance benefit in comparison to the available data
with application of screw spaced at 406 mm o.c.
Double-row wood stud walls The application of a separate superimposed load on
each of separate stud rows in double-row stud assemblies is suggested to measure
the tangible fire resistance benefit in comparison with the available data when the
load is applied on both rows simultaneously during the entire fire test.

4.3.3. Exterior Walls The gaps below are suggested for future research to improve
the fire resistance performance of exterior wall assemblies as follows:
Walls with OSB Sheathing The installation of screws for attaching the Type 9
gypsum board to wood framing at reduced spacing from the standard 406 mm
o.c. to non-standard 203 mm o.c. in board field and to 150 mm o.c. at the board
joints are suggested to maximise tangible fire resistance benefit for exterior walls
with OSB sheathing,
Walls with gypsum board glass mat sheathing The installation of screws for
attaching the Type 9 gypsum board, 15.9 mm thick, and Type 9 gypsum board
glass mat sheathing, 15.9 mm thick, to wood framing at reduced spacing from the
standard 406 mm o.c. to non-standard 203 mm o.c. in board field and to 150 mm
o.c. at the board joints are suggested to maximise the tangible fire resistance bene-
fit in exterior walls with gypsum mat sheathing.

5. Conclusions
Concluding remarks on the summary results, gaps future research and design
guidelines are presented for three construction wall applications: interior party
walls, interior fire separation walls and exterior walls as follows:

5.1. Interior Party Walls

1. The effect of insulation type on the fire resistance in asymmetrical non-load-

bearing wall assembly (1 9 2), is significant, however, the effect of insulation
type in symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assembly is insignificant as the fire resistance
protection is mainly provide by the two layers of gypsum board where joints
are staggered. In loadbearing wall assembly (1 9 2) with resilient channels
installed on the single gypsum board layer exposed to furnace heat, the effect
of insulation type and gypsum board thickness on the fire resistance is insignifi-
cant due to the unprotected gypsum board joint installation. In (1 9 2) assem-
bly, the effect of resilient channels installation location (single- vs double-layer
side) on fire resistance may be significant as it provided10% more fire resis-
tance when installed on the double layer side compared to single layer side,
however, in (2 9 2) wall assembly the effect of resilient channels installation
and location is insignificant as the fire resistance protection was mainly pro-
vide, as mentioned above, by the two layers of gypsum board. In (1 9 2)
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3435

assembly, the installation of a second layer of gypsum board to the single layer
side increased the fire resistance by 36%.
2. Future research to improve the fire resistance for (1 9 2) wall assembly is sug-
gested such as the use of a reduced screw spacing for attaching the gypsum
board to studs from 406 mm o.c. to 203 mm o.c. Additional future research
gap examples are also provided.
3. Design guidelines for asymmetrical (1 9 2) and symmetrical (2 9 2) steel or
wood stud wall assemblies are provided. For examples, in non-loadbearing
steel stud asymmetrical (1 9 2) wall assembly, if 1.5-h fire resistance rating is
required, filling the wall cavity with rock fibre insulation is suggested and
another example for loadbearing asymmetrical (1 9 2) wood stud wall, if 45-
min FRR is required, the resilient channels can be installed on either side of
the wall however, if 1-h FRR is require it’s suggested to install the resilient
channels on the double layer side with reduce the screw spacing from 406 mm
o.c. to 203 mm o.c. on the gypsum board edges. Additional guidelines exam-
ples are also provided for design practioners use.

5.2. Interior Fire Separation Walls

1. In single-row of wood studs symmetrical wall assemblies (2 9 2), the effect of

insulation type and mid-height blocking installation on the fire resistance is
insignificant as the fire resistance protection was mainly provided by the instal-
lation of two layers of gypsum board. In double-row of wood stud wall assem-
blies (2 9 2), the effect of insulation type on the fire resistance is significant,
however, the effect of mid-height blocking and resilient channels spacing
(403 mm o.c. vs 610 mm o.c.) on fire resistance is insignificant.
2. Future research to improve the fire resistance for symmetrical (2 9 2) wall
assemblies is suggested by reducing the screw spacing for attaching the gypsum
board to wood studs from 406 mm o.c. to 203 mm o.c.
3. Design guidelines for single-row of wood studs symmetrical wall assemblies
(292) are provided. For example if 2-h FRR is required, the use of med-height
blocking is suggested, however, if only 1.5 h FRR is required the use of mid-
height blocking is not suggested. Another example, for double-row of wood
stud wall, if 2-h FRR is required, the use of CFI to fill the wall cavities and
the vertical space between the two stud rows is suggested. Additional guidelines
examples for loadbearing symmetrical (2 9 2) wall assemblies with single- or
double-row of wood stud are provided for design practioners use.
3436 Fire Technology 2022

5.3. Exterior Walls

1. In exterior wall assembly with OSB sheathing where standard screw spacing
406 mm o.c. for attaching the gypsum board to wood studs on the fire exposed
side is used, the effect of insulation type on the fire resistance is significant,
however, in the exterior wall assembly with glass mat gypsum board sheathing,
where non-standard 203 mm o.c. is used, the effect of insulation type on fire
resistance is insignificant. In exterior wall assembly with gypsum board glass
mat sheathing, the effect of reducing the screw spacing from 406 mm o.c. to
203 mm o.c. for attaching both the gypsum board and to wood studs, on the
fire resistance is significant. The difference between the gypsum board fall-off
time, on the fire exposed side, and assembly’s time to failure is within three
minutes which suggesting that the gypsum board on the fire exposed side is
controlling the fire resistance of the assembly. Comparison of FRR of this
study versus available literature showed that the exterior walls with OSB and
gypsum board glass mat sheathing when tested on maximum load provide 45-
min FRR compare to the ULC listing of 1-h FRR when the assembly tested
on restricted load 82% of the maximum design load.
2. Future research to improve the fire resistance for exterior wall assembly with
OSB sheathing is suggested by reducing the screw spacing for attaching the
gypsum board on the fire exposed side to wood studs from 406 mm o.c. to
203 mm o.c. in board field and from 406 mm o.c. to 150 mm o.c. at the board
edges
3. Design guidelines for loadbearing exterior wall assemblies with either OSB or
glass mat are provided. For example in assembly with gypsum board sheathing,
the reduction of screw spacing from 406 mm o.c. to 203 mm o.c. can expand
the FRR from no useful use of 30 min to a useful code compliance use of 45-
min FRR. Additional design guidelines examples are also provided for design
practioners use.

Acknowledgements
The National Research Council Canada appreciates the participation of partners
in providing financial and in-kind material contributions, as well as, technical con-
tributions throughout the projects. The partners include: the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, Canadian Wood Council, Canadian Home Builders
Association, Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute, Owens Corning Canada,
Forinek Canada Corporation, Gypsum Manufacturers of Canada, Cellulose insu-
lation Manufacturers Associations (Canada and USA), City of Calgary (Canada),
CertainTeed gypsum (USA), PABCO Gypsum (USA), USG (USA) and Rock-
wool (Canada).
Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls 3437

Funding
Open Access provided by National Research Council Canada.

References
1. National Building Code of Canada (1990) National Research Council Canada, Ottawa
2. Sultan M, Lougheed G (2002) Results of fire resistance test on full-scale gypsum board
wall assemblies, Internal Report 833. National Research Council Canada, Ottawa
3. Kodur V, Sultan M, Latour J, Leroux P, Monette R (2013) Experimental studies on
the fire resistance of load-bearing steel stud walls, Research Report 343. National
Research Council Canada, Ottawa
4. Sultan M, Adelzadeh M (2019) Fire-resistance performance of building assembles-re-
sults of 13 full-scale wall assemblies’ tests, National Research Council Canada, Report
Const-56340E, Ottawa
5. Quirt D, Warnock A, Birta J (1995) Summary report for consortium on gypsum board
walls: Sound transmission results, National Research Council Canada, IRC-IR-693
6. Warnock A, Quirt J (1997) Control of sound transmission through gypsum board
walls, National Research Council Canada, Construction Technology Update
7. National Building Code of Canada (2000) National Research Council Canada, Ottawa
8. National Building Code of Canada (2005) National Research Council Canada, Ottawa
9. National Building Code of Canada (2020) to be published, National Research Council
Canada, Ottawa
10. ULC listing (2020) Design W308-BxUVC, Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, Scar-
borough, ON
11. ULC listing (2020) Design U356-BxUVC, Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, Scar-
borough, ON
12. CAN/S101-M89 (1989) Standard Methods of fire endurance tests of building materials
Underwriter’s’ Laboratories of Canada, Scarborough, ON
13. Lie TT, Berndt JE (1972) Remote measuring of large deflections in fire tests, Division
of Building Research, National Research Council Canada, Building Research Note No.
84
14. CAN/CSA—A82.31-M91 (1991) Gypsum board application, Canadian Standards Asso-
ciation, Rexdale, ON
15. Sultan M (2020) Fire resistance of wood stud wall assemblies. Fire Mater . https://
doi.org/10.1002/fam.2918
16. Sultan MA (2021) Fire resistance of exterior wall assemblies for housing and small
buildings. Fire Technol 57:699–720

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.