Warringtonfire T: +44 (0)1925 655 116

Suite 302 info.warrington@warringtonfire.com

The Genesis Centre warringtonfire.com
Birchwood
Warrington
WA3 7BH

Title:

The Fire Resistance

Performance of Jansen
Janisol 2, Janisol C4,
Economy 60 & Art 15
(Economy 50) Unlatched,
Non-rebated, Single Acting
Doorsets When Incorporating
Various Modifications

WF Assessment Report
No:

407072 q Issue 4

Prepared for:

Jansen AG
Industriestr. 34
9463 Oberriet
Switzerland

Date:

04 December 2019

Warringtonfire Testing and Certification Limited

Registered in England and Wales
Registered Office: 3rd Floor, Davidson Building, 5 Southampton Street, London, United Kingdom, WC2E 7HA
Company Registration No: 11371436
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 2 of 157

Foreword
This assessment report has been commissioned by Jansen AG and relates to the fire resistance
performance of glazed steel doorsets, when modified as proposed.

This assessment is for National Application and has been written in accordance with the general
principles outlined in BS EN 15725: 2010;
, as appropriate.

This assessment uses established empirical methods of extrapolation and experience of fire testing
similar assemblies, in order to extend the scope of application by determining the limits for the design
based on the tested constructions and performances obtained. The assessment is an evaluation of the
potential fire resistance performance, if the elements were to be tested in accordance with EN 1634-1.
This assessment cannot therefore be considered for a CE marking application nor can the conclusion
be used to establish a formal classification against EN13501-2.

This assessment has been written using appropriate test evidence generated at an appropriately
accredited laboratory to the relevant test standard. The supporting test evidence has been deemed
appropriate to support the manufacturers stated design and is summarised in the Supporting data
section of this report.

The defined scope presented in this assessment report relates to the behaviour of the proposed
design under the particular conditions of the test; they are not intended to be the sole criterion for
assessing the potential fire hazard of the assembly in use.

This assessment has been prepared and checked by product assessors with the necessary
competence, who subscribe to the principles outlined in the PFPF Guide to Undertaking Technical
Assessments of Fire Performance of Construction Products Based on Fire Test Evidence - 2021. The
aim of the PFPF guidelines is to give confidence to end-users that assessments based on fire test
evidence that exist in the UK are of a satisfactory standard for building control and other purposes.

The PFPF guidelines are produced by the UK Fire Test Study Group (FTSG) an association of the
major fire testing laboratories in the UK and are published by the PFPF, the representative body for
the passive fire protection industry in the UK.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 3 of 157

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5
ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 5
PROPOSALS ................................................................................................................... 6
ASSESSED PERFORMANCE – JANISOL 2 ........................................................................ 10
ASSESSED PERFORMANCE – JANISOL C4 ...................................................................... 25
ASSESSED PERFORMANCE – ECONOMY 60 .................................................................... 39
ASSESSED PERFORMANCE – ART 15 (ECONOMY 50) ..................................................... 54
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 74
VALIDITY ....................................................................................................................... 74
SUMMARY OF SUPPORTING DATA ................................................................................. 75
DECLARATION BY JANSEN AG. ...................................................................................... 81
SIGNATORIES ................................................................................................................ 82
REVISION HISTORY....................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX A – JANISOL 2 DRAWINGS ........................................................................... 84
APPENDIX B – JANISOL C4 DRAWINGS......................................................................... 97
APPENDIX C – ECONOMY 60 DRAWINGS ...................................................................... 109
APPENDIX D – ART 15 DRAWINGS ................................................................................ 121
APPENDIX E - SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 150
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 4 of 157

Executive Summary
Objective This report provides an appraisal regarding the likely fire resistance
performance of Jansen Janisol 2, Janisol C4 and Economy 60 steel doorsets
when incorporating the various modifications as described within this report.

The various constructions are required to provide an integrity only or an

integrity and insulation (I2 only) performance of 30 or 60 minutes, dependant
on specification, should they be tested in accordance with EN 1634-1.

Addresses Jansen AG Sch7co International KG

Industriestr. 34 Karolinenstr. 1-15

9463 Oberriet 33609 Bielefeld
Switzerland Germany

Summary of It can be concluded that the various constructions, as discussed in this

Conclusions assessment, should be expected to be capable of achieving the fire resistance
performance as defined within the relevant section (dependant on
specification), if tested in accordance with EN 1634-1.

This assessment represents our opinion as to the performance likely to

be demonstrated on a test in accordance with EN1634-1, on the basis
of the evidence referred to above. We express no opinion as to
whether that evidence, and/or this assessment, would be regarded by
any Building Control authorities or any other third parties as sufficient
for that or any other purpose. This assessment is provided to the client
for its own purposes and we cannot opine on whether it will be
accepted by Building Control authorities or any other third parties for
any purpose.

Valid Until 15 October 2029

This report may only be reproduced in full. Extracts or abridgements of reports

shall not be published without permission of Warringtonfire.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 5 of 157

Introduction
This report provides an appraisal regarding the likely fire resistance
performance of Jansen Janisol 2, Janisol C4 and Economy 60 steel doorsets
when incorporating the various modifications as described within this report.

The various constructions are required to provide an integrity only or an

integrity and insulation (I2 only) performance of 30 or 60 minutes, dependant
on specification, should they be tested in accordance with EN 1634-1.

FTSG The data referred to in the supporting data section has been considered for the
purpose of this appraisal which has been prepared in accordance with the Fire
Test Study Group Resolution No. 82: 2001.

Assumptions
It is assumed that the proposed constructions will be fixed to an appropriately
fire rated structure, which has been the subject of a previous fire test and
found to be capable of providing the required level of fire performance to
effectively support the proposed constructions without detrimental effect for
the applicable required period of 30 or 60 minutes.

It is assumed that the proposed door assemblies will be installed by competent

installers, in a similar manner to the previously tested specimens and in
accordance with Jansen AG approved installation methods.

It is assumed that doors will be in the closed position.

Within this report, where applicable, the requirement for the construction to
meet the insulation criteria, of the EN1634-1 test method, applies to the
normal (I2) procedure only. It does not apply to the supplementary (I1)
procedure. Where the construction has been deemed to meet the criteria for
rZ_df]ReZ`_ 'B2 `_]j(s+ eYZd hZ]] dZ^a]j SV cVWVccVU e` Rd rZ_df]ReZ`_s- ;e _` a`Z_e
in this rVa`ce hZ]] R_j cVWVcV_TV e` rZ_df]ReZ`_s cVWVc e` eYV T`_decfTeZ`_ ^VVeZ_X
both the I1 and I2 criteria. It will refer only to the I2 criteria having been met.

This assessment has not been conducted in line with the Extended Application
Standard EN15269-5 and so cannot be used as a basis for CE-Marking.

Furthermore; it shall not be considered that the contents of this report pertain
to a type approval or confer a formal classification (as per EN13501-2) upon
the construction.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 6 of 157

Proposals
Janisol 2 (EI30) Test report No. 319031809 was a test on a Janisol 2 double-leaf doorset which
incorporated an un-rebated meeting edge. The remaining vertical edges and
headers (of both leaves) incorporated a rebate resulting, therefore, in the door
being single-action.

It is proposed that a 30 minute integrity and insulation performance should be

achieved if a single or double-leaf specimen of the Janisol 2 doorset,
incorporating this un-rebated leading / meeting edge and any combination of
the following variations (subject to limitations described within the relevant
section), were it tested to EN 1634-1:

n FRj SV R dZ_X]V `c U`fS]V ]VRW T`_WZXfcReZ`_-

n May be inwards or outwards opening.
n FRj fdV various glazing bead designs on either the fire-side, the non-fire-side
or be centric (beading on both sides).
n The use of various types of hinge.
n The use of various glazing strips.
n FRj SV Z_TcVRdVU in dimensions.
n May incorporate door leaves of unequal dimensions.
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV Wan lights and / or side lights.
n May use drop seals.
n FRj incorporate the Jansen ITS96 integrated door closer, a surface mounted
door closer and / or surface mounted door operators.
n LYV fdV `W `aeZ`_R] ]`T\d-
n FRj SV WZeeVU Z_ e` gRcZ`fd ejaVd `W dfaa`ceZ_X T`_decfTeZ`_-
n The use of mullions / transoms within the door leaves.
n LYV fdV `W dYVVe ^VeR]-clad doors (full door cladding).
n LYV fdV `W UZWWVcV_e X]Rdd ejaVd Z_ dZ_X]V aR_V X]RkZ_X R_U tB_df]ReZ_X A]RkVU
M_Zedu 'BAMud( in the door leaf(s), side lights and fan lights.
n LYV fdV of infill panels, in the door leaf(s), fan lights and side lights, which are
not glass.
@fceYVc UVeRZ]d RcV ac`gZUVU Z_ eYV cV]VgR_e r;ddVddVU IVcW`c^R_TVs dVTeZ`_ `W
this report.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 7 of 157

Janisol C4 (EI60) Test report No. WF 403121 was a test on a Janisol C4 double-leaf doorset
which incorporated an un-rebated meeting edge. The remaining vertical edges
and headers (of both leaves) incorporated a rebate resulting, therefore, in the
door being single-action.

It is proposed that a 60 minute integrity and insulation performance should be

achieved if a single or double-leaf specimen of the Janisol C4 doorset,
incorporating this un-rebated leading / meeting edge and any combination of
the following variations (subject to limitations described within the relevant
section), were it tested to EN 1634-1:

n FRj SV R dZ_X]V `c U`fS]V ]VRW T`_WZXfcReZ`_-

n May be inwards or outwards opening.
n FRj fdV gRcZ`fd X]RkZ_X SVRU UVdZX_d `_ VZeYVc eYV WZcV-side, the non-fire-side
or be centric (beading on both sides).
n The use of various types of hinge.
n LYV fdV `W gRcZ`fd X]RkZ_X decZad-
n FRj SV Z_TcVRdVU in dimensions.
n May incorporate door leaves of unequal dimensions.
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV fan lights and / or side lights.
n FRj fdV Uc`a dVR]d-
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV the Jansen ITS 96 integrated door closer, a surface mounted
door closer and / or surface mounted door operators.
n LYV fdV `W `aeZ`_R] ]`T\d-
n FRj SV WZeeVU Z_ e` gRcZ`fd ejaVd `W dfaa`ceZ_X T`_decfTeZ`_-
n The use of mullions / transoms within the door leaves.
n LYV fdV `W UZWWVcV_e X]Rdd ejaVd Z_ dZ_X]V aR_V X]RkZ_X R_U tB_df]ReZ_X A]RkVU
M_Zedu 'BAMud( in the door leaf(s), side lights and fan lights.
n LYV fdV `W Z_WZ]] aR_V]d, in the door leaf(s), fan lights and side lights, which are
not glass.
Further details are ac`gZUVU Z_ eYV cV]VgR_e r;ddVddVU IVcW`c^R_TVs dVTeZ`_ `W
this report.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 8 of 157

Economy 60 (E30 There is no direct test evidence of an Economy 60 doorset tested with an un-
& E60) rebated meeting / leading edge. It is proposed that an Economy 60 doorset
may be fitted with an un-rebated meeting / leading edge whilst the remaining
vertical edges and headers (of both leaves) incorporate a rebate resulting,
therefore, in the door being single-action.

It is then further proposed that a 30 minute or 60 minute integrity only

performance should be achieved if a single or double-leaf specimen of the
Economy 60 doorset, incorporating this un-rebated leading / meeting edge and
any combination of the following variations (subject to limitations described
within the relevant section), were it tested to EN 1634-1:

n FRj SV R dZ_X]V `c U`fS]V ]VRW T`_WZXfcReZ`_-

n May be inwards or outwards opening.
n FRj fdV gRcZ`fd X]RkZ_X SVRU UVdZX_d `_ VZeYVc eYV WZcV-side or the non-fire-
side.
n The use of various types of hinge.
n LYV fse of various glazing strips.
n FRj SV Z_TcVRdVU in dimensions.
n May incorporate door leaves of unequal dimensions.
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV fan lights and / or side lights.
n FRj fdV Uc`a dVR]d-
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV dfcWRTV ^`f_eVU U``c T]`dVcd-
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV surface mounted door operators.
n LYV fdV `W `aeZ`_R] ]`T\d-
n FRj SV WZeeVU Z_ e` gRcZ`fd ejaVd `W dfaa`ceZ_X T`_decfTeZ`_-
n The use of mullions / transoms within the door leaves.
n LYV fdV `W UZWWVcV_e X]Rdd ejaVd Z_ dZ_X]V aR_V X]RkZ_X in the door leaf(s), side
lights and fan lights.
n LYV fdV `W Z_WZ]] aR_V]d, in the door leaf(s), fan lights and side lights, which are
not glass.
@fceYVc UVeRZ]d RcV ac`gZUVU Z_ eYV cV]VgR_e r;ddVddVU IVcW`c^R_TVs dVTeZ`_ `W
this report.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 9 of 157

Art 15 (Economy Test report No. 321121202-1 was a test on an Art 15 (Economy 50) double-
50) (E120 & leaf doorset which incorporated an un-rebated meeting edge. The remaining
EW120) vertical edges and headers (of both leaves) incorporated a rebate resulting,
therefore, in the door being single-action.

It is proposed that up to a 120 minute integrity and radiation performance

(depending upon configuration, construction and orientation q see additional
cVbfZcV^V_ed.TRgVRed Z_ eYV rA]RkZ_X HaeZ`_ds dVTeZ`_ Z_ cVXRcUd cRUZReZ`_)
should be achieved if a single or double-leaf specimen of the Art 15 (Economy
50) doorset, incorporating this un-rebated leading / meeting edge and any
combination of the following variations (subject to limitations described within
the relevant section), were it tested to EN 1634-1:

n FRj SV R dZ_X]V `c U`fS]V ]VRW T`_WZXfcReZ`_-

n May be inwards or outwards opening.
n FRj fdV gRcZ`fd X]RkZ_X SVRU UVdZX_d `_ VZeYVc eYV WZcV-side or the non-fire-
side.
n The use of various types of hinge.
n LYV fdV `W gRcZ`fd X]RkZ_g strips.
n FRj SV Z_TcVRdVU in dimensions.
n May incorporate door leaves of unequal dimensions.
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV WR_ ]ZXYed R_U . `c dZUV ]ZXYed-
n FRj fdV Uc`a dVR]d-
n FRj Z_T`ca`cReV U``c T]`dVcd-
n LYV fdV `W `aeZ`_R] ]`T\d-
n FRj SV WZeeVU Z_ e` gRcious types of supporting construction.
n The use of mullions / transoms within the door leaves.
n The use of steel flats for reinforced element coupling.
n LYV fdV `W UZWWVcV_e X]Rdd ejaVd Z_ dZ_X]V aR_V X]RkZ_X in the door leaf(s), side
lights and fan lights.
n LYV fdV `W Z_WZ]] aR_V]d, in the door leaf(s), fan lights and side lights, which are
not glass.
@fceYVc UVeRZ]d RcV ac`gZUVU Z_ eYV cV]VgR_e r;ddVddVU IVcW`c^R_TVs dVTeZ`_ `W
this report.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 10 of 157

Assessed Performance – Janisol 2

Introduction The Janisol 2 system is a steel profile based system used for the construction of
doors and associated screens (fan lights and side lights). Primarily composed of
steel profile sections with a thermal break and internal plasterboard insulation, the
profiles are welded together and the apertures glazed. Uninsulated steel glazing
beads are then affixed. The system is designed to provide 30 minutes integrity and
insulation and has been extensively tested. Test report No. 319031809 included the
use of an un-rebated meeting edge. A typified cross section is shown below.

Configuration The construction tested in report No. 319031809 composed a double leaf
doorset and an associated fan light and side light. Empirical test evidence
shows this to be a very onerous configuration in which to test a doorset due to
the likelihood of differential rates of expansion and deformation and
subsequent gap formation and failure of the test criteria.

As per the direct field of application rules stated within EN 1634-1 the addition
of a second side panel (on the side where none were tested) is allowable.

Likewise the removal of the side panel and / or the fan light is also considered
acceptable.

The reduction of the doorset from double leaf to single leaf is also considered
acceptable.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 11 of 157

Orientation It is proposed that a 30 minute fire resistance integrity and insulation

(Inwards or performance should be expected were the Janisol 2 system, when
Outwards Opening incorporating the unrebated meeting edge, exposed to the heating conditions
Direction) of the EN 1634-1 test method; when opening towards or away from the
furnace.

The below table shows a list of test reports and the corresponding opening
direction.

Test Report No. Construction Type Opening Direction

13-002710-PR01 Single-leaf Towards Furnace

13-002710-PR02 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

10-V-025 2x Single-leaves Away from Furnace

840 668-9 Single-leaf Towards Furnace

3850/1564 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

271 32521 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

3635/9504 Double-leaf Towards Furnace

10-V-074 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

15-000478-PR01 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

10-V-182 Single-leaf Towards Furnace

10-V-075 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

DTM-DO-50-209 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

RFTR15087 Single-leaf Towards Furnace

319031809 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

All of the above mentioned tests achieved results of, or in excess of, 30
minutes fire resistance integrity and insulation.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 12 of 157

It is generally accepted that opening away from the heating conditions of the test is
the more onerous set of conditions for metal leaves hung in metal frames. This is
certainly true of doors that do not contain any insulating material. It is less clear cut
for doors, like the Janisol 2 profile system, which contain insulating material within
the frame profile and are often infilled with an insulating glass. The main factor
being the tendency for metal door leaves to bow towards the heating conditions at
the mid-height and to bow away from the heating conditions at the top and the
bottom of the leaf. In a door that opens away from the heating conditions of the
test, this tendency to bow away from the heating conditions at the top and bottom
of the door leaf, means that the leaf will bow away from the doorstop / rebate of
the frame. This increases the chance of failure due to the passage of flames and
hot gases to the unexposed face. Furthermore failure by gap gauge criteria also
SVT`^Vd ^`cV ]Z\V]j- LYV t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu hZeYZ_ eYV eVde
standard, EN1634-1, states that for hinged metal leaf doors, which contain
insulation material, hung in metal frames (as is the case for the Janisol 2 system); it
is not possible to identify the worst case direction and so testing shall be carried out
from both directions. The large body of test evidence submitted in support of the
Janisol 2 system meets this requirement.

Furthermore; the test report submitted in support of the unrebated meeting edge,
No. 319031809, opened away from the furnace and so can be said to have been
tested in the more onerous direction. Further to this; it was tested with a fan light
and a side light (on one side only) which is generally considered to be the most
onerous configuration for exposing the construction to risk of deflection, gap
formation and subsequent failure.

It is considered, therefore, that a Janisol 2 doorset may be used incorporating the

un-rebated meeting / leading edge, which opens in either direction.

Glazing Beads It is proposed that the Janisol 2 system may incorporate the use of several
different glazing bead designs. All are un-insulated and are of a steel
construction.

Test report No. 271 32521 incorporated the Janisol 2 standard clip on glazing
beads (article number# 402.130Z) measuring 30mm wide by 20mm high.
These glazing beads were on the exposed face and are clipped on to stud
fasteners (article number# 450.007). The test achieved 42 minutes integrity
and insulation.

Test report No. 15-000478-PR01 incorporated the Janisol 2 standard clip on

glazing beads (article number# 402.130) measuring 20mm wide by 25mm
high. These glazing beads were on the exposed face and are clipped on to stud
fasteners (article number# 450.007). The test achieved 43 minutes integrity
and insulation.

Test report No. 10-V-182 incorporated the use of box section glazing beads
measuring 20mm tall by 10mm wide (1.5mm wall thickness). These glazing
beads were on the exposed face and were fixed using screws (article number#
557.048). The test achieved 42 minutes integrity and insulation.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 13 of 157

Test report No. 10-V-175 incorporated the use of box section glazing beads
measuring 30mm tall by 20mm wide (1.5mm wall thickness). These glazing
beads were on the exposed face and were fixed using screws (article number#
557.048). The test achieved 41 minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 10-V-025 incorporated the use of L-shaped angle glazing beads
measuring 30mm tall by 20mm wide (2mm thick). These glazing beads were
on the exposed face and were fixed using screws. The test achieved 39
minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 10-V-025 also incorporated the use of another type of glazing bead
q an amalgamation of the L-shaped angle and box section designs, referenced
62.509GV+GC. These glazing beads were on the exposed face and were fixed
using screws. The test achieved 37 minutes integrity and insulation.

It is further proposed that the glazing beads may be positioned on the exposed
or un-exposed face of the construction.

Generally, in constructions like the Janisol 2 system, the glass is held in place
by the flange of the profile, on one side, and a glazing bead on the other side.
Exposing the glazing bead to the heating conditions of the test is the more
onerous condition due to the simple fact that the beads are less secure, than
the flange of the profile, and may detach during the test (which decreases the
protection offered to the edge of the glass and also increases the potential of
the glass to fall out).

The tests mentioned previously show that the Janisol 2 system has maintained a 30
minute fire resistance integrity and insulation performance when it has been
subject to test with the glazing bead on the exposed, more onerous, face of the
construction. There are also instances where the beading was positioned on the
unexposed face (report number: RFTR15087).

Given the above it is considered that a 30 minute fire resistance integrity and
insulation performance would be expected were the Janisol 2 system exposed to
the heating conditions of the EN 1634-1 test method; with the glazing beads on the
exposed or unexposed face.

The above examples are just a selection of the full range of successful tests in
which the various glazing bead designs have been included. It is considered,
therefore, that a Janisol 2 doorset may be used incorporating the un-rebated
meeting / leading edge and any of the four glazing bead designs discussed
above when positioned on the exposed or un-exposed face of the door.

Be Zd R]d` ac`a`dVU eYRe eYV X]RkZ_X SVRUd ^Rj SV fdVU Z_ R tTV_ecZTu WRdYZ`_-
i.e. glazing beads are used on both faces q the profile does not contain a
flange.

LYZd tTV_ecZTu X]RkZ_X YRd _`e SVV_ eVdeVU UZcVTe]j W`c eYV CR_Zd`] 1 djdeV^- Be
has, however, been used in a test of the Janisol C4 system (report No# 09-V-
163) where 63 minutes integrity and insulation was achieved. This test actually
incorporated both the standard and box section type glazing beads.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 14 of 157

It is considered that the above test example coupled with the robust, all steel
construction of all four types of glazing bead (standard, box section, L-shape
R_U tYjScZUu( R_U eYV VieV_dZgV eVde VgZUV_TV RgRZ]RS]V Z_ eYVZc t_`c^R]u fdV (on
one side only): eYV tTV_ecZTu djdeV^ ^Rj SV a`dZeZgV]j RaacRZdVU W`c fdV hZeY R
doorset containing the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

The glazing beads ^fde+ Y`hVgVc+ SV WZeeVU Rd aVc eYV ^R_fWRTefcVcud

instructions/guidelines and in the same fashion as reported in the relevant
referenced test.

Hinge Types It is proposed that the Janisol 2 doorset may be fitted with one of several types of
hinge; a concealed screw on type (article number 555.024), a 3D weld on type
(article number 550.276), 3D screw on type (article number 555.572 / 555.573), a
screw on surface mounted type (article number 550.250 / 550.286), a pivot type
(article number 550.398) and an anti-finger trap pivot type (article number 550.675
+ associated parts).

Each of the above listed types of hinge has been subject to at least one fire
resistance test (in accordance with EN1634-1) as part of the Janisol 2 system.

The concealed screw on type (article number 555.024) was tested and reported in
test report numbers: 13-002710-PR01 & 13-002710-PR02.

The 3D weld on type (article number 550.276) was tested and reported in test
report numbers: 840 668-9, 271 32521 & 3635/9504 (amongst others).

The 3D screw on type (article number 555.572 / 555.573) was tested and reported
in test report numbers: 15-000478-PR01 & 10-V-182.

The screw on surface mounted type (article number 550.250 / 550.286) was
tested and reported in test report number: P304027.

The pivot type (article number 550.398) was tested and reported in test report
number: 10-V-075.

The anti-finger trap pivot type (article number 550.675 + associated parts) was
tested and reported in test report numbers: DTM-DO-50-209-R1 & RFTR15087.

In all instances, with the exception of test report number P304027, an

insulation and integrity result in excess of 30 minutes was achieved. In test
report number P304027 sustained flaming was observed and reported from the
bottom right corner of the active leaf, specifically from the underside of the
door leaf. It is not felt that this sustained flaming is attributable to the hinge.

The above referenced test reports were a mixture of single-leaf & double-leaf
doorsets which opened towards and away from the fire.

The cumulative effect of this large body of test evidence is to demonstrate that the
Janisol 2 system can achieve a 30 minute integrity and insulation performance, as
per the requirements of EN1634-1, when incorporating a variety of different hinge
types. The use, therefore, of these various different hinge types with the Janisol 2
system, when incorporating an un-rebated meeting / leading edge, is permissible.

LYV YZ_XVd ^fde+ Y`hVgVc+ SV WZeeVU Rd aVc eYV ^R_fWRTefcVcud

instructions/guidelines and in the same fashion as reported in the relevant
referenced test.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 15 of 157

Glazing Strip It is proposed that the glazing strip may be one of several different options.
There are several EPDM glazing weather strip options (Article Noud. 455.053,
455.027 & 455.028), a Distance Strip option (Article No. 455.031) and several
Ceramic Fibre Strip options ';ceZT]V G`ud- 340-/17, 451.023, 451.024, 451.025,
451.026 & 451.029).

;ceZT]V G`ud 344-/42 '?I>F( R_U 344-/20 '>ZdeR_TV KecZa( hVcV Z_T]fUVU as
aRce `W eYV eVdeVU T`_decfTeZ`_d Z_ cVa`ce G`ud- 02-002710-PR01 and 13-
002710-PR02 in which test results of 55 minutes and 39 minutes integrity and
insulation, respectively, were achieved.

;ceZT]V G`ud 344-/16 & 455.028 (EPDM) and 455.027 & 451.023 (Ceramic Fibre
Strip) were included as part of the tested construction in report No. 10-V-025
in which a test result of 39 minutes integrity and insulation was achieved.

;ceZT]V G`ud 340-/13+ 340-/14+ 340-/15 & 340-/18 '=VcR^ZT @ZScV KecZa( hVcV
included as part of the tested construction in report No. 10-V-182 in which a
test result of 42 minutes integrity and insulation was achieved.

As can be seen from the above listed results the various glazing strips and
seals have been included in many successful tests (in fact the above are just a
selection of the total catalogue of successful tests). All of the above glazing
strips must be used in conjunction with an insulating glass.

The above discussed glazing strips may be used on single or double-leaf

doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

Increase in It is proposed that the overrun achieved by the construction tested in report No.
Dimensions 319031809, when compared to the 30 minute integrity and insulation requirement,
may be used to off-set an equivalent increase in either of the dimensions of the
doorset (width or height), subject to a maximum surface area.

The 8 minute (or 26% - capped at 25%) integrity and insulation overrun achieved
by the construction tested in report No. 319031809 results in allowable leaf
dimensions, for a double or single leaf door, of 2890 mm high (at 1115 mm wide)
or 1393 mm wide (at 2312 mm high), subject to a maximum area of 3.22m2.

It has been requested by the sponsor of this report that a limit, of a maximum
of 9260mm, be put on the total gap length (head, jambs & meeting edge) of a
construction where a smoke leakage performance is required. i.e. the total
smoke leakage shall not exceed 3m3/hour/per metre length at ambient
temperature and a pressure of 25Pa. This claim of smoke leakage performance
has not been verified by Warringtonfire and is included simply for information
and as a courtesy to the sponsor of the report.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 16 of 157

Unequal Leaves It is proposed that doorsets incorporating leaves of unequal width may be
permitted. The doorset in test report No. 319031809 contained leaves each
measuring 2312 mm high by 1115 mm wide. Using the rules given within the
t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu in EN 1634-1, it is permissible that
one leaf may be increased in width and one leaf reduced in width.

Using these rules it is permissible that one leaf may have a width up to the
(sponsors self-imposed) maximum of 1100 mm and the other leaf decreased
by up to 50%.

Other tests exist where the tested construction contained door leaves of unequal
width. These are discussed below. They did not, however, contain the un-rebated
meeting edge of the above discussed equal width double leaf doorset.

Test report No. Efectis 09-V-296 was a test on a Janisol 2 system doorset
containing leaves of unequal dimensions. The active leaf measured 1390 mm wide
by 2512 mm high and the inactive leaf measured 540 mm wide by 2512 mm high.
The inactive leaf was, therefore, 39% the width of the active leaf. The tested
construction achieved 40 minutes integrity and insulation as per the requirements
of EN 1634-1.

Test report No. Efectis 10-V-026 was a test on a Janisol 2 system doorset
containing leaves of unequal dimensions. The active leaf measured 1378 mm wide
by 2612 mm high and the inactive leaf measured 542 mm wide by 2612 mm high.
The inactive leaf was, therefore, 39% the width of the active leaf. The tested
construction achieved 37 minutes integrity and insulation as per the requirements
of EN 1634-1.

Test report No. IFT 271 38194 was a test on a Janisol 2 system doorset containing
leaves of unequal dimensions. The active leaf measured 1440 mm wide by 2512
mm high and the inactive leaf measured 1070 mm wide by 2512 mm high. The
inactive leaf was, therefore, 74% the width of the active leaf. The tested
construction achieved 30 minutes integrity and insulation as per the requirements
of EN 1634-1.

The three test reports discussed above all demonstrate that the Janisol 2 system is
capable of achieving the required 30 minute integrity and insulation rating when
incorporating door leaves of unequal dimensions, albeit when also incorporating a
rebate at the meeting edge. The referenced tests included in-active leaves of 39%,
39% and 74%, respectively, the width of their associated active leaves. This
evidence, coupled with the rules given in eYV t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde
JVdf]edu Z_ ?G 0523-1, allows the positive appraisal of the use of door leaves of
unequal width when subject to the limits described at the start of this section.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 17 of 157

Fan Lights & Side Test report No. 319031809 contained a fan light measuring 2216 mm wide by
Lights 501 mm high and a side light measuring 606 mm wide by 2271 mm high. The
tested construction achieved 38 minutes integrity and insulation. The glass
used was Contraflam 30-2. This demonstrates that the inclusion of fan lights
and side lights is not of detriment, to the fire resistance result achieved, by a
doorset containing the unrebated meeting edge.

Test report No. 15-000478-PR01 details a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a

double-leaf doorset which also incorporated a fan light and side lights all
constructed using the Janisol 2 system. The fan light was glazed using
Contraflam 30-2 and measured 2126mm wide x 835mm high. The side lights
used a butt jointed glazing system of Contraflam 30 Structure measuring 600
and 1500 wide (respectively) and 3500mm high. The construction achieved 43
minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 3635-9504 details a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a double-
leaf doorset which also incorporated a fan light and side light all constructed
using the Janisol 2 system. The fan light was glazed using Pyrostop 30-20 and
measured 3000mm wide x 1300mm high. The side light was glazed using
Pyrostop 30-20 measuring 787mm wide by 3000mm high. The construction
achieved 42 minutes integrity and insulation.

The two above tests may be used to demonstrate that the Janisol 2 system is
capable of achieving 30 minutes integrity and insulation result when incorporating
side lights and fan lights of greater dimensions than those used during the test of
the unrebated door leaf (test No. 319031809) .
Construction
Glass Type Max Dimensions Max Area
Type
Contraflam 30-2 2657 mm wide (at 1043 mm high (at
Fan Light 2.22m2
(20 mm thick) 835 mm high) 2126 mm wide)
Pyrostop 30-20 3750 mm wide (at 1625 mm high (at
Fan Light 4.88m2
(18 mm thick) 1300 mm high) 3000 mm wide),
Contraflam 30
1875 mm wide (at 4375 mm high (at
Structure (23 mm Side Light 6.56m2*
3500 mm high)* 1500 mm wide)*
thick)
Pilkington Pyrostop
984 mm wide (at 3750 mm high (at
30-20 (18 mm Side Light 2.95m2
3000 mm high) 787 mm wide)
thick)
* It should be noted that these dimensions apply to each individual pane within the butt-
jointed system.

It is proposed tYRe R_j `W eYV R]eVc_ReZgV X]RddVd ]ZdeVU Z_ eYV tA]RkZ_X HaeZ`_du
section of this report (for use in the door leaves) may also be used in the side lights
and fan lights. The maximum dimensions allowable, for these alternative glasses,
shall be the same as those given in the above table on the proviso that those other
glasses have allowable dimensions that are either the same as or in excess of those
above (provided that the maximum allowable is within the range allowable for that
glass and is proven by test, assessment (by Warringtonfire) or certification
evidence).
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 18 of 157

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that side lights and fan lights
in the Janisol 2 system may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The glass
must be approved for use within insulated steel doorsets/screens for integrity and
insulation periods of 30 minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire
approval as per the requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be
taken to ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum dimensions
etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this assessment and the
Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire approval take precedence. It
should be noted that this does not confer Certifire approval upon the doorset.

The above discussed dimensions may be applied to the fan and side lights of
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge. They also apply equally to doorsets containing one or two side lights.

Drop Seals The construction tested in report No. 319031809 included the use of an
automatic drop seal (article No# 555.371) along the bottom edge of both
leaves. As discussed previously a fire resistance integrity and insulation
performance of 38 minutes was achieved.

An identical construction was then tested to EN 1634-3 and reported in test

report No. 318091705-2. A maximum smoke leakage of 18.6m3/h was
recorded during test (maximum allowable, as per requirements of EN 13501-2,
is 30m3/h). The smoke leakage at the threshold gap is not counted towards the
overall smoke leakage rate recorded during test to EN 1634-3, however, the
combination of the two above mentioned test reports demonstrates that the
inclusion of this automatic drop seal is not of detriment to either the smoke
]VR\RXV cReV `c eYV WZcV cVdZdeR_TV aVcW`c^R_TV `W eYV U``cdVe- Beus use, on
single or double-leaf, doorsets with an un-rebated meeting / leading edge can,
therefore, be positively appraised. This report does not, however, confer a
formal classification upon this construction.

Door Closers & The construction tested in report No. 319031809 included the use of a surface
Door Operators ^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>`c^R LK 82 < *A-Gu fixed to each
leaf on the unexposed face. The construction achieved 38 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 10-V-025 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>`c^R LK 82 <u WZiVU e` eYV ]VRW `_
the unexposed face. The construction achieved 37 minutes fire resistance
integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. RFTR 16142 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc . `aVcRe`c cVWVcV_TVU t>`c^R ?> 14/u WZiVU e`
each leaf on the exposed face. The construction achieved 39 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 271 30539 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tA?Q? LK 4///u WZiVU e` VRTY ]VRW `_
the unexposed face. The construction achieved 36 minutes fire resistance
integrity and insulation.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 19 of 157

The construction tested in report No. 271 32521 included the use of a surface
mounted automatic door closer/operator cVWVcV_TVU tBesam Power Swing-2
SAS-Fu WZiVU e` VRTY ]VRW `_ eYV Via`dVU WRTV- LYV T`_decfTeZ`_ RTYZVgVU 42
minutes fire resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 10-V-183 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t?=H ?K< LK-50 BB KJu WZiVU e` VRTY
leaf on the unexposed face. The construction achieved 46 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 10-V-075 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; A82-GSR-<Ku WZiVU e` VRTY
leaf on the unexposed face. The construction achieved 41 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 12-003306-PR01 included the use of a

dfcWRTV ^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tASSA ABLOY DC 700G-FTu
fixed to the unexposed face. The construction achieved 40 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 15-001190-PR01 included the use of a

surface mounted automatic door closer/operator cVWVcV_TVU tA?Q? I`hVcefc_
F/R-BKu WZiVU e` VRTY ]VRW `_ eYV f_Via`dVU WRTV- LYV T`_decfTeZ`_ RTYZVgVU 2/
minutes fire resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. RFTR15087 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tHLK 625u WZiVU e` VRTY ]VRW `_ eYV
exposed face. The construction achieved 38 minutes fire resistance integrity
and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. LP-00811/2010 included the use of a

dfcWRTV ^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tGEZE TS 2000u WZiVU e` the
active leaf on the exposed face. The construction achieved 30 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 321062001-1 included the use of an

Z_eVXcReVU U``c T]`dVc+ cVWVcV_TVU tBLK85u+ Z_dZUV eYV YVRU ac`WZ]V `W VRTY ]VRW-
The construction opened away from the heating conditions and achieved 35
minutes fire resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 321062001-2 included the use of an

Z_eVXcReVU U``c T]`dVc+ cVWVcV_TVU tBLK85u+ Z_dZUV eYV YVRU ac`WZ]V `W VRTY ]VRW-
The construction opened towards the heating conditions and achieved 46
minutes fire resistance integrity and insulation.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 20 of 157

It is only test report Noud. 319031809, 321062001-1 and 321062001-2 that

included the un-rebated meeting edge, all the other test reports referenced
above had a rebated meeting / leading edge. It is considered, however, that
the location of surface mounted door closers / operators should be taken in to
consideration. They are positioned towards the hinge side and, therefore, are
not in close proximity to the un-rebated meeting / leading edge. Furthermore;
all of the above referenced tests achieved a fire resistance integrity and
insulation performance of, or in excess of, the 30 minutes required. The use,
therefore, of the specific door closers mentioned above, on doorsets with the
unrebated meeting / leading edge can be positively appraised.

Lock Options The construction tested in report No. 208/207/8 Z_T]fUVU eYV fdV `W eYV t=Rc]
Fuhr ;TeZ`_ F`ceZTV E`T\u 'RceZT]V G`- 444-8/7(- LYV ]ReTY hRd _`e V_XRXVU
during the test and so its use is optional. This applies equally to double-leaf
doorsets and single leaf doorsets.

Supporting It is proposed that the Janisol 2 doorset may be fitted within one of several
Construction types of supporting construction; concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel
stud partition, plasterboard clad timber stud partition or a glazed screen
partition of the Janisol 2 series- ;d ^V_eZ`_VU Z_ eYV t;ddf^aeZ`_du dVTeZ`_ `W
this report q it is assumed that any supporting construction, into which the
doorset is being fitted, has been subject to separate test and has achieved the
appropriate fire resistance rating.

A concrete/blockwork supporting construction was used, and reported, in the

following test report numbers: 10-V-025, 3635/9504, 10-V-074, 10-V-182, 840
668-9 & P304027 (amongst others).
A plasterboard clad steel stud partition was used, and reported, in the
following test report numbers: 13-002710-PR01, 13-002710-PR02 & LP-
00811/201/e.
No test evidence has been supplied showing the Janisol 2 doorset mounted in
a plasterboard clad timber stud partition supporting construction.

The constructions contained within the above referenced test reports were of
various dimensions, containing various glasses and in various formats (single-
leaf/double-leaf, opening towards/opening away+ T`_eRZ_Z_X BAMud.dZ_X]V aR_V
glass, with side-light/without side-light, with fan-light/without fan-light etc). The
cumulative effect of this large body of test evidence is to demonstrate that the
Janisol 2 system (in a wide variety of formats) can achieve a 30 minute integrity
and insulation performance, as per the requirements of EN1634-1, when mounted
within a concrete/blockwork or plasterboard clad steel stud partition supporting
construction.

There is no direct test evidence showing the Janisol 2 doorset being subject to a
fire resistance test, in accordance with EN1634-1, when mounted within a
plasterboard clad timber stud partition. Empirical test evidence, in regards
plasterboard clad timber stud partitions, shows that constructions of this type are
more thermally stable than plasterboard clad steel stud partitions and, therefore,
less prone to deflection/distortion as a result of its own reaction to the heating
conditions of the test.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 21 of 157

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the supporting construction would not
negatively influence the doorset and the doorset would not negatively affect the
supporting construction, in regards deformation and subsequent gap formation,
were the Janisol 2 doorset mounted within a plasterboard clad timber stud
partition. This is particularly true given the fact that the Janisol 2 system has been
subject to successful tests when fitted within a plasterboard clad steel stud partition
q a construction which is more susceptible to deflection in and of itself.

Test report No. 15-000478-PR01 is a test of a Janisol 2 glazed doorset with a fan
light fitted within a glazed screen partition of the Janisol 2 series (the two vertical
edges were left free i.e. not fixed back to the test frame). This allows for the infinite
addition to the glazed screen (on each side of the doorset). It is not considered that
this represents an increased risk to the proposed un-rebated meeting / leading
edge of the doorset because this screen is more likely to deflect in sympathy with
the doorset than if it were fixed back to a rigid supporting construction.

It can be concluded, therefore, that were the Janisol 2 doorset fitted within a
concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel stud partition, plasterboard clad
timber stud partition or a glazed screen partition of the Janisol 2 series, a result
of 30 minutes integrity and insulation would be expected were it tested in
accordance with EN1634-1.

Mullions & It is proposed that mid-rails/transoms may be incorporated in to the Janisol 2

Transoms system. Test report number 271 32521 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a
double-leaf doorset which opened away from the furnace. The tested specimen
included transoms at approximately 1/3 height (up from the floor) in both leaves.
The glazing beads were on the exposed face. The tested construction achieved 42
minutes integrity and insulation.

In the absence of mid-rails/transoms the Janisol 2 system has proved itself capable
of achieving 30 minutes integrity and 30 minutes insulation as described previously
in the listed test results. Test report 271 32521 shows that the inclusion of a
transom is not of detriment to the performance of the Janisol 2 doorset.

In fact; it is considered that the inclusion of a mid-rail / transom will serve to

strengthen the door itself and also provide increased support to the glass. This will
only be of benefit to the construction as a whole. The use of mid-rails / transoms
can, therefore, be positively appraised when included in a construction with the un-
rebated meeting / leading edge.

Sheet Metal-Clad It is proposed that the doorset tested in report No. 319031809 may be
Doors (Full Door modified by the use of 3 mm thick sheet metal cladding. The construction
Cladding) essentially uses the Janisol 2 system without glazing and instead uses 3mm
thick sheet steel welded on to the Janisol 2 profiles, mineral wool of 110kg/m3
density is then inserted between the steel skins. The door frame is also
composed of the Janisol 2 system.

Test report No. 13-V-209 was a test of a double leaf doorset. The leaves each
measuring 2510 mm high by 1185 mm wide. The test achieved 42 minutes
integrity and insulation as per EN 1634-1. The steel sheet used in this test
measured 3 mm thick.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 22 of 157

Test report No. 271 38190 was a test of a double leaf doorset with side lights
and fan lights. The leaves each measuring 2512 mm high by 1330 mm wide.
The fan light measured 1291 mm high by 2616 mm wide. The side lights
measured 2441 mm high by 941 mm wide. The test achieved 37 minutes
integrity and insulation as per EN 1634-1. The steel sheet used in this test
measured 1.5 mm thick.

Test report No. 271 38193 was a test of a single leaf doorset. The leaf
measured 2512 mm high by 1440 mm wide. The test achieved 50 minutes
integrity and insulation as per EN 1634-1. The steel sheet used in this test
measured 2 mm thick.

Test report No. 271 38192 was a test of a single leaf doorset which contained
a vision panel. The leaf measured 2512 mm high by 1440 mm wide. The vision
panel is created by the use of a square pane of glass measuring 526 mm x 526
mm which is then framed in such a way as to create a circular vision panel with
a clear vision diameter of 500 mm. The test achieved 35 minutes integrity and
insulation as per EN 1634-1. The steel sheet used in this test measured 2 mm
thick.
It is considered that, given the depth of successful supporting test data for
Janisol 2 doorsets using full door steel sheet cladding as described above, it is
permissible that the un-rebated meeting / leading edge construction, as tested
in report No. 319031809, may be modified by the use of 3 mm thick sheet
steel cladding without detriment to the test result achieved.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 23 of 157

Glazing Options The doorset tested in report No. 319031809 was glazed with Contraflam 30-2
(20 mm thick) with dimensions of 2160 mm high by 963 mm wide (giving an
area of 2.08m2 per leaf). It is proposed that the doorset may be glazed with
those glasses listed below.

Test Glass Type Integrity and Tested Dimensions (per leaf)

Report No. Insulation Test Result

2460 mm high x 986 mm wide

10-V-075 Contraflam 30 (16mm) 41 minutes
(2.42m2)
15-000478- 2472 mm high x 943 mm wide
Contraflam 30-2 (20mm) 43 minutes
PR01 (2.33m2)
Top Panel: 1552 mm high x
1113 mm wide (1.72m2)
Fireswiss Foam 30-15
271 32521 42 minutes Transom
(15mm thick)
Bottom Panel: 762 mm high x
1113 mm wide (0.85m2)
Pyrostop 30-20 (18mm 2400 mm high x 1378 mm wide
3635-9504 42 minutes
thick) (3.31m2)
2517 mm high x 1077 mm wide
RFTR15087 Pyrobel 16 EG (21mm) 38 minutes
(2.71m2)
Pyrostop 30-17 (52mm
thick triple glazed unit)
(15mm Pyrostop, 12mm
13-002710- 55 minutes 2212 mm high x 1240 mm wide
spacer, 4mm float, 12mm
PR01 (2.74m2)
spacer, 4mm float x2 with
1mm PVB interlayer). Pyro
to non-fire side.*
Pyrostop 30-17 (52mm
thick triple glazed unit)
(15mm Pyrostop, 12mm
13-002710- 2212 mm high x 1240 mm wide
spacer, 4mm float, 12mm 39 minutes
PR02 (2.74m2)
spacer, 4mm float x2 with
1mm PVB interlayer). Pyro
to fire side.*
Contraflam 30 IGU (40mm
thick triple glazed unit)
DMT-DO-50- (4mm Low-E coated float, 2538 mm high x 1298 mm wide
44 minutes
209 8mm spacer, 4mm Low-E (3.29m2)
safety glass, 8mm spacer,
16mm Contraflam).**
* This configuration may be used with the Pyrostop fire glass on either the exposed or
non-exposed face, however, it will be limited to 39 minutes.
** This configuration may only be used for exposure to the heating conditions where the
Contraflam fire glass is to the non-exposed face of the construction only.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 24 of 157

The maximum dimension increases described previously in this report may be

applied to doorsets containing the un-rebated meeting edge, and any of the
glasses listed above, provided that the maximum allowable is within the range
allowable for that glass and is proven by test, assessment (by Warringtonfire)
or certification evidence.

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that the Janisol 2 system

may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The glass must be approved
for use within insulated steel doorsets for integrity and insulation periods of 30
minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire approval as per the
requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be taken to
ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum
dimensions etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this
assessment and the Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire
approval take precedence.

Given the above discussion it is considered permissible that the above listed
glasses may be used in a doorset containing the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge.

Infill Panels The doorset tested in report No. 319031809 did not contain an infill panel (of a
material other than glass). It is proposed, however, that infill panels may be
used in the Janisol 2 system where an unrebated meeting / leading edge is
used.

Test report No. 10-V-182 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a Janisol 2
doorset (with a normal rebated leading edge) which incorporated a leaf containing
an infill panel rather than glazing. The infill panel was nominally 38 mm thick and
composed 1x layer of 15mm thick Knauf K751 plasterboard, 1x layer of 20mm thick
Knauf K751 plasterboard and a 1 mm thick steel sheet on each face. The different
layers were bonded together using an adhesive referenced article number 450.096.
The panel had dimensions of 1200 mm wide by 2483 mm high. The construction
achieved a fire resistance integrity and insulation performance of 42 minutes.

This demonstrates that the use of an infill panel of this construction is capable of
contributing to a successful test, as per the requirements of EN 1634-1, when fitted
within the Janisol 2 system.

The use of this panel in the Janisol 2 system as a door leaf infill or as a side light or
fan light infill is, therefore, considered permissible. The infill panel must be
constructed as described in the above mentioned test report. The test report also
provides details of the beading, intumescent materials, mineral fibre strip and
silicone which must also be used.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 25 of 157

Assessed Performance – Janisol C4

Introduction The Janisol C4 system is a steel profile based system used for the construction of
doors and associated screens (fan lights and side lights). Primarily composed of
steel profile sections with a thermal break and internal insulation, the profiles are
welded together and the apertures glazed. Uninsulated steel glazing beads are then
affixed. The system is designed to provide 60 minutes integrity and insulation and
has been extensively tested. Test report No. WF 403121 included the use of an un-
rebated meeting edge. A typified cross section is shown below.

Configuration The construction tested in report No. WF 403121 composed a double leaf
doorset and an associated fan light and side light. Empirical test evidence
shows this to be a very onerous configuration in which to test a doorset due to
the likelihood of differential rates of expansion and deformation and
subsequent gap formation and failure of the test criteria.

As per the direct field of application rules stated within EN 1634-1 the addition
of a second side panel (on the side where none were tested) is allowable.

Likewise the removal of the side panel and / or the fan light is also considered
acceptable.

The reduction of the doorset from double leaf to single leaf is also considered
acceptable.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 26 of 157

Orientation It is proposed that a 60 minute fire resistance integrity and insulation

(Inwards or performance should be expected were the Janisol C4 system, when
Outwards Opening incorporating the unrebated meeting edge, exposed to the heating conditions
Direction) of the EN 1634-1 test method; when opening towards or away from the
furnace.

The below table shows a list of test reports and the corresponding opening
direction.

Test Report No. Construction Type Opening Direction

LP-1328.1/08 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

LP-02200/09 Double-leaf Towards Furnace

08-V-364 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

09-V-163 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

09-V-437 Double-leaf Towards Furnace

09-V-438 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

10-V-146 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

10-V-151 Double-leaf Towards Furnace

10-V-152 Single-leaf Towards Furnace

10-V-152 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

289689/3362 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

289689/3362 Double-leaf Towards Furnace

WF403121 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

All of the above mentioned tests achieved results of, or in excess of, 60
minutes fire resistance integrity and insulation.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 27 of 157

It is generally accepted that opening away from the heating conditions of the test is
the more onerous set of conditions for metal leaves hung in metal frames. This is
certainly true of doors that do not contain any insulating material. It is less clear cut
for doors, like the Janisol C4 profile system, which contain insulating material within
the frame profile and are often infilled with an insulating glass. The main factor
being the tendency for metal door leaves to bow towards the heating conditions at
the mid-height and to bow away from the heating conditions at the top and the
bottom of the leaf. In a door that opens away from the heating conditions of the
test, this tendency to bow away from the heating conditions at the top and bottom
of the door leaf, means that the leaf will bow away from the doorstop / rebate of
the frame. This increases the chance of failure due to the passage of flames and
hot gases to the unexposed face. Furthermore failure by gap gauge criteria also
SVT`^Vd ^`cV ]Z\V]j- LYV t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu hZeYZ_ eYV eVde
standard, EN1634-1, states that for hinged metal leaf doors, which contain
insulation material, hung in metal frames (as is the case for the Janisol C4 system);
it is not possible to identify the worst case direction and so testing shall be carried
out from both directions. The large body of test evidence submitted in support of
the Janisol C4 system meets this requirement.

Furthermore; the test report submitted in support of the unrebated meeting edge,
No. WF 403121, opened away from the furnace and so can be said to have been
tested in the more onerous direction. Further to this; it was tested with a fan light
and a side light (on one side only) which is generally considered to be the most
onerous configuration for exposing the construction to risk of deflection, gap
formation and subsequent failure.

It is considered, therefore, that a Janisol C4 doorset may be used incorporating the

un-rebated meeting / leading edge, which opens in either direction.

Glazing Beads It is proposed that the Janisol C4 system may incorporate the use of several
different glazing bead designs. All are un-insulated and are of a steel
construction.

Test report No. LP-02200-09 incorporated the Janisol C4 standard clip on

glazing beads (article number# 402.130Z). These glazing beads were on the
exposed face and are clipped on to stud fasteners (article number# 450.007).
The test achieved 63 minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 09-V-437 incorporated a Janisol C4 clip on glazing bead (article
number# 402.115Z) measuring 15mm wide by 20mm high. These glazing
beads were on the exposed face and are clipped on to stud fasteners (article
number# 450.007). The test achieved 87 minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No.09-V-163 incorporated the use of box section glazing beads
measuring 20mm tall by 10mm wide (1.5mm wall thickness). These glazing
beads were on the exposed and the un-exposed face and were fixed using
screws (article number# 557.010). The test achieved 63 minutes integrity and
insulation.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 28 of 157

Test report No. 09-V-438 incorporated the use of box section glazing beads
measuring 20mm tall by 20mm wide (1.5mm wall thickness). These glazing
beads were on the unexposed face and were fixed using screws (article
number# 557.010). The test achieved 68 minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 09-V-438 also incorporated the use of L-shaped angle glazing
beads measuring 20mm tall by 20mm wide (2mm thick). These glazing beads
were on the unexposed face and were fixed using screws. The test achieved 68
minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 10-V-152 incorporated the use of L-shaped angle glazing beads
measuring 30mm tall by 20mm wide (2mm thick). These glazing beads were on
the exposed face and were fixed using screws. The test achieved 61 minutes
integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 09-V-438 also incorporated the use of another type of glazing bead
q an amalgamation of the L-shaped angle and box section designs, referenced
62.509GV+GC. These glazing beads were on the exposed face and were fixed
using screws (article number# 550.515). The test achieved 68 minutes integrity
and insulation.

It is further proposed that the glazing beads may be positioned on the exposed
or un-exposed face of the construction.

Generally, in constructions like the Janisol C4 system, the glass is held in place
by the flange of the profile, on one side, and a glazing bead on the other side.
Exposing the glazing bead to the heating conditions of the test is the more
onerous condition due to the simple fact that the beads are less secure, than
the flange of the profile, and may detach during the test (which decreases the
protection offered to the edge of the glass and also increases the potential of
the glass to fall out).

The tests mentioned previously show that the Janisol C4 system has maintained a
60 minute fire resistance integrity and insulation performance when it has been
subject to test with the glazing bead on the exposed, more onerous, face of the
construction. There are also instances where the beading was positioned on the
unexposed face.

Given the above it is considered that a 60 minute fire resistance integrity and
insulation performance would be expected were the Janisol C4 system exposed to
the heating conditions of the EN 1634-1 test method; with the glazing beads on the
exposed or unexposed face.

The above examples are just a selection of the full range of successful tests in
which the various glazing bead designs have been included. It is considered,
therefore, that a Janisol C4 doorset may be used incorporating the un-rebated
meeting / leading edge and any of the four glazing bead designs discussed
above when positioned on the exposed or un-exposed face of the door.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 29 of 157

It is also proposed that the glazing beads may be used Z_ R tTV_ecZTu WRdYZ`_-
i.e. glazing beads are used on both faces q the profile does not contain a
flange.

Test report No.09-V-163 incorporated the use of box section glazing beads
measuring 20mm tall by 10mm wide (1.5mm wall thickness) and the standard clip
`_ X]RkZ_X SVRUd 'RceZT]V _f^SVc$ 3/1-004Q( Z_ eYZd tTV_ecZTu WRdYZ`_. i.e. the
glazing beads were on the exposed and the un-exposed faces. The test achieved
63 minutes integrity and insulation.

It is considered that the above test example coupled with the robust, all steel
construction of all four types of glazing bead (standard, box section, L-shape
R_U tYjScZUu( R_U eYV VieV_dZgV eVde VgZUV_TV RgRZ]RS]V Z_ eYVZc t_`c^R]u fdV '`_
`_V dZUV `_]j(: eYV tTV_ecZTu djdeV^ ^Rj SV a`dZeZgV]j RaacRZdVU W`c use with a
doorset containing the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

The glazing beads ^fde+ Y`hVgVc+ SV WZeeVU Rd aVc eYV ^R_fWRTefcVcud

instructions/guidelines and in the same fashion as reported in the relevant
referenced test.

Hinge Types It is proposed that the Janisol C4 doorset may be fitted with one of several types of
hinge; a 3D weld on type (article numbers 550.276 / 550.268 / 555.268), a 3D
screw on type (article numbers 550.271 / 550.272 / 550.570 / 550.571 / 550.570 /
555.571), and a screw on surface mounted type (article number 550.250).

Each of the above listed types of hinge has been subject to at least one fire
resistance test (in accordance with EN1634-1) as part of the Janisol C4 system.

The 3D weld on type (article numbers 550.276 / 550.268 / 555.268) was tested
and reported in test report numbers: LP-1328.1/08, LP-02200/09, 08-V-364 &
WF403121 (amongst others).
The 3D screw on type (article numbers 550.271 / 550.272 / 550.570 / 550.571 /
550.570 / 555.571) was tested and reported in test report numbers: 10-V-151 &
14022630.
The screw on surface mounted type (article number 550.250) was tested and
reported in test report number: 09-V-163.

In all instances an insulation and integrity result in excess of 60 minutes was

achieved. The above referenced test reports were a mixture of single-leaf &
double-leaf doorsets which opened towards and away from the furnace.

The cumulative effect of this large body of test evidence is to demonstrate that the
Janisol C4 system can achieve a 60 minute integrity and insulation performance, as
per the requirements of EN1634-1, when incorporating a variety of different hinge
types. The use, therefore, of these various different hinge types with the Janisol C4
system is permissible.

The hinges must+ Y`hVgVc+ SV WZeeVU Rd aVc eYV ^R_fWRTefcVcud

instructions/guidelines and in the same fashion as reported in the relevant
referenced test.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 30 of 157

Glazing Strips It is proposed that the glazing strip may be one of several different options.
There are several EPDF X]RkZ_X hVReYVc decZa `aeZ`_d ';ceZT]V G`ud- 344-/16,
455.028 & 455.029( R_U dVgVcR] =VcR^ZT @ZScV KecZa `aeZ`_d ';ceZT]V G`ud-
451.021, 451.023, 451.025, 451.026 & 455.405).

;ceZT]V G`ud 344-/27 & 455.028 (EPDM) were included as part of the tested
construction in report No. LP-1328.1-08 in which test results of 62 minutes
integrity and insulation were achieved.

;ceZT]V G`ud 341.026 (EPDM) & 455.026 (Ceramic Fibre Strip) were included as
part of the tested construction in report No. LP-02200-09 in which a test result
of 63 minutes integrity and insulation was achieved.

;ceZT]V G`ud 345.027, 455.028 & 455.029 (EPDM) were included as part of the
tested construction in report No. 08-V-364 in which a test result of 73 minutes
integrity and insulation was achieved.

;ceZT]V G`ud 455.024, 455.027, 455.028 & 455.029 (EPDM) and 451.021
(Ceramic Fibre Strip) were included as part of the tested construction in report
No. 09-V-163 in which a test result of 63 minutes integrity and insulation was
achieved.

AreZT]V G`ud 451.021, 451.023, 451.025 & 451.026 (Ceramic Fibre Strip) were
included as part of the tested construction in report No. 09-V-437 in which a
test result of 87 minutes integrity and insulation was achieved.

As can be seen from the above listed results the various glazing strips and
seals have been included in many successful tests (in fact the above are just a
selection of the total catalogue of successful tests). All of the above glazing
strips must be used in conjunction with an insulating glass.

The above discussed glazing strips may be used on single or double-leaf

doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

Increase in It is proposed that the overrun achieved by the construction tested in report No.
Dimensions WF403121, when compared to the 60 minute integrity and insulation requirement,
may be used to off-set an equivalent increase in either of the dimensions of the
doorset (width or height), subject to a maximum surface area.

The 6 minute (or 10%) integrity and insulation overrun achieved by the
construction tested in report No. WF403121 results in allowable leaf dimensions, for
a double or single leaf door, of 2543 mm high (at 1115 mm wide) or 1226 mm
wide (at 2312 mm high), subject to a maximum area of 2.84m2.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 31 of 157

Unequal Leaves It is proposed that doorsets incorporating leaves of unequal width may be
permitted. The doorset in test report No. WF403121 contained leaves each
measuring 2312 mm high by 1115 mm wide. Using the rules given within the
t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu Z_ ?G 0523-1, it is permissible that
one leaf may be increased in width and one leaf reduced in width.

Using these rules it is permissible that one leaf may have a width up to the
(sponsors self-imposed) maximum of 1100 mm and the other leaf decreased
by up to 50%.

One test exists where the tested construction contained door leaves of unequal
width. This is discussed below. It did not, however, contain the un-rebated meeting
edge of the above discussed equal width double leaf doorset.

Test report No. 09-V-438 was a test on a Janisol C4 system doorset containing
leaves of unequal dimensions. The active leaf measured 1390 mm wide by 2512
mm high and the inactive leaf measured 866 mm wide by 2512 mm high. The
inactive leaf was, therefore, 62% the width of the active leaf. The tested
construction achieved 76 minutes integrity and insulation as per the requirements
of EN 1634-1.

The above mentioned test report further demonstrates that the Janisol C4 system is
capable of achieving the required 60 minute integrity and insulation rating when
incorporating door leaves of unequal dimensions, albeit when also incorporating a
rebate at the meeting edge. The referenced test included an in-active leaf of 62%
the width of the associated active leaf. This evidence, coupled with the rules given
in eYV t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu Z_ ?G 0523-1, allows the positive
appraisal of the use of door leaves of unequal width when subject to the limits
described at the start of this section.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 32 of 157

Fan Lights & Side Test report No. WF403121 contained a fan light measuring 2218 mm wide by
Lights 503 mm high and a side light measuring 608 mm wide by 2273 mm high. The
tested construction achieved 66 minutes integrity and insulation. The glass
used was Contraflam 60-3. This demonstrates that the inclusion of fan lights
and side lights is not of detriment, to the fire resistance result achieved, by a
doorset containing the unrebated meeting edge.

Test report No. 10-V-151 details a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a double-
leaf doorset which also incorporated a fan light and side lights all constructed
using the Janisol C4 system. The fan light was glazed using Fireswiss Foam 60-
23 and measured 2138mm wide x 658mm high. The side light was glazed with
Fireswiss Foam 60-23 with dimension 273 mm wide by 1205 mm high. Two of
these panes were used in the construction, one above the other, separated by
a transom. The construction achieved 62 minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 09-V-437 details a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a double-
leaf doorset which also incorporated a fan light and side light all constructed
using the Janisol C4 system. The fan light was glazed Contraflam 60 DGU (41
mm thick composed of 25 mm Contraflam 60, 10 mm steel spacer and 6 mm
toughened) and measured 2045mm wide x 313mm high. The side light was
glazed using the same construction as the fan light and measured 322mm wide
by 2425mm high. The construction achieved 87 minutes integrity and
insulation.

The two above tests may be used to demonstrate that the Janisol C4 system is
capable of achieving 60 minutes integrity and insulation result when incorporating
side lights and fan lights of alternative construction to that used during the test of
the unrebated door leaf (test No. WF. 403121).
Construction
Glass Type Max Dimensions Max Area
Type
Fireswiss Foam
2202 mm wide (at 677 mm high (at
60-23 (23 mm Fan Light 1.45m2
658 mm high) 2138 mm wide)
thick)
Contraflam 60 2556 mm wide (at 391 mm high (at
Fan Light 0.80m2
DGU 313 mm high) 2045 mm wide)
Fireswiss Foam
281 mm wide (at 1241 mm high (at
60-23 (23 mm Side Light 0.34m2*
1205 mm high)* 273 mm wide)*
thick)
Contraflam 60 3031 mm wide (at 402 mm high (at
Side Light 0.98m2
DGU 322 mm high) 2425 mm wide)
It is proa`dVU eYRe R_j `W eYV R]eVc_ReZgV X]RddVd ]ZdeVU Z_ eYV tA]RkZ_X HaeZ`_du
section of this report (for use in the door leaves) may also be used in the side lights
and fan lights. The maximum dimensions allowable, for these alternative glasses,
shall be the same as those given in the above table on the proviso that those other
glasses have allowable dimensions that are either the same as or in excess of those
above (provided that the maximum allowable is within the range allowable for that
glass and is proven by test, assessment (by Warringtonfire) or certification
evidence).
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 33 of 157

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that side lights and fan lights
in the Janisol C4 system may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The glass
must be approved for use within insulated steel doorsets/screens for integrity and
insulation periods of 60 minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire
approval as per the requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be
taken to ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum dimensions
etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this assessment and the
Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire approval take precedence. It
should be noted that this does not confer Certifire approval upon the doorset.

The above discussed dimensions may be applied to the fan and side lights of
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge. They also apply equally to doorsets containing one or two side lights.

Drop Seals The construction tested in report No. WF403121 included the use of an
automatic drop seal (article No# 555.371) along the bottom edge of both
leaves. As discussed previously a fire resistance integrity and insulation
performance of 66 minutes was achieved.

An identical construction was then tested to EN 1634-3 and reported in test

report No. 318091705-1. A maximum smoke leakage of 23.1m3/h was
recorded during test (maximum allowable, as per requirements of EN 13501-2,
is 30m3/h). The smoke leakage at the threshold gap is not counted towards the
overall smoke leakage rate recorded during test to EN 1634-3, however, the
combination of the two above mentioned test reports demonstrates that the
inclusion of this automatic drop seal is not of detriment to either the smoke
]VR\RXV cReV `c eYV WZcV cVdZdeR_TV aVcW`c^R_TV `W eYV U``cdVe- Beud fdV+ `_
single or double-leaf, doorsets with an un-rebated meeting / leading edge can,
therefore, be positively appraised. This report does not, however, confer a
formal classification upon this construction.

Door Closers & The construction tested in report No. WF 403121 included the use of concealed
Door Operators door closers cVWVcV_TVU t>`c^R ITS 96+G96Gu WZtted within each leaf. The
construction achieved 66 minutes fire resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 10-V-152 included the use of a surface
mounted automatic d``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; LK 82 <u WZiVU e` eYV
exposed face of one leaf and the unexposed face of the other leaf (2x single
leaf doorsets). The construction achieved 61 minutes fire resistance integrity
and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 14022603 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tA?Q? LK 4///u fixed to the exposed
face of one leaf and the unexposed face of the other leaf (2x single leaf
doorsets). The construction achieved 66 minutes fire resistance integrity and
insulation.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 34 of 157

The construction tested in report No. LP-1328.1/08 included the use of a

dfcWRTV ^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tA?Q? LK; 05/u WZiVU e`
both leaves on the exposed face. The construction achieved 62 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

The construction tested in report No. 18-000183 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tAZ]XV_ @>1/-@ BJKu WZiVU e` eYV
unexposed face of the leaf. The construction achieved 94 minutes fire
resistance integrity and insulation.

It is only test report No. WF 403121 that included the un-rebated meeting
edge, all the other test reports referenced above had a rebated meeting /
leading edge. It is considered, however, that the location of surface mounted
door closers / operators should be taken in to consideration. They are
positioned towards the hinge side and, therefore, are not in close proximity to
the un-rebated meeting / leading edge. Furthermore; all of the above
referenced tests achieved a fire resistance integrity and insulation performance
of, or in excess of, the 60 minutes required. The use, therefore, of the specific
door closers / operators mentioned above, on doorsets with the unrebated
meeting / leading edge can be positively appraised.

Lock Options The construction tested in report No. WF403121 Z_T]fUVU eYV fdV `W eYV t=Rc]
Fuhr BE297 NP35 M`ceZTV E`T\u. The test achieved 66 minutes integrity and
insulation. The latch was not engaged during the test and so its use is optional.
This applies equally to double-leaf doorsets and single leaf doorsets.

The construction tested in report No. 17-002866-PR01 included the use of the
t>HJF; LN0//u R_U t>HJF; LN1//u electromagnetic locks. The test achieved
87 minutes integrity and insulation. The electromagnetic locks were not
powered during the test and so their use is optional. This applies equally to
double-leaf doorsets and single leaf doorsets.

Supporting It is proposed that the Janisol C4 doorset may be fitted within one of several
Construction types of supporting construction; concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel
stud partition, plasterboard clad timber stud partition, a glazed screen partition
of the Janisol C4 series or a Jansen VISS façade. As mentioned in the
t;ddf^aeZ`_du dVTeZ`_ `W eYZd cVa`ce q it is assumed that any supporting
construction, into which the doorset is being fitted, has been subject to
separate test and has achieved the appropriate fire resistance rating.

A concrete/blockwork supporting construction was used, and reported, in the

following test report numbers: LP-1328.1/08, LP-02200/09, 08-V-364 & 09-V-
437 (amongst others).
A plasterboard clad steel stud partition was used, and reported, in the
following test report numbers: 09-V-163 & 10-V-146.
No test evidence has been supplied showing the Janisol C4 doorset mounted in
a plasterboard clad timber stud partition supporting construction.
A Jansen VISS façade was used, and reported, in the following test report number:
14022630.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 35 of 157

The constructions contained within the above referenced test reports were of
various dimensions, containing various glasses and in various formats (single-
leaf/double-]VRW+ `aV_Z_X e`hRcUd.`aV_Z_X RhRj+ T`_eRZ_Z_X BAMud.dZ_X]V aR_V
glass, with side-light/without side-light, with fan-light/without fan-light etc). All tests
achieved at least 60 minutes integrity and insulation as per the requirements of EN
1634-1. The cumulative effect of this large body of test evidence is to demonstrate
that the Janisol C4 system (in a wide variety of formats) can achieve a 60 minute
integrity and insulation performance, as per the requirements of EN1634-1, when
mounted within a concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel stud partition or a
Jansen VISS façade supporting construction.

There is no direct test evidence showing the Janisol C4 doorset being subject to a
fire resistance test, in accordance with EN1634-1, when mounted within a
plasterboard clad timber stud partition. Empirical test evidence, in regards
plasterboard clad timber stud partitions, shows that constructions of this type are
more thermally stable than plasterboard clad steel stud partitions and, therefore,
less prone to deflection/distortion as a result of its own reaction to the heating
conditions of the test.

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the supporting construction would

not negatively influence the doorset and the doorset would not negatively
affect the supporting construction, in regards deformation and subsequent gap
formation, were the Janisol C4 doorset mounted within a plasterboard clad
timber stud partition. This is particularly true given the fact that the Janisol C4
system has been subject to successful tests when fitted within a plasterboard
clad steel stud partition q a construction which is more susceptible to deflection
in itself.

Test report No. 09-V-437 is a test of a Janisol C4 glazed doorset with a fan
light fitted within a glazed screen partition of the Janisol 2 series (the two
vertical edges were left free i.e. not fixed back to the test frame). This allows
for the infinite addition to the glazed screen (on each side of the doorset). It is
not considered that this represents an increased risk to the proposed un-
rebated meeting / leading edge of the doorset because this screen is more
likely to deflect in sympathy with the doorset than if it were fixed back to a
rigid supporting construction.

It can be concluded, therefore, that were the Janisol C4 doorset fitted within a
concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel stud partition, a plasterboard clad
timber stud partition, a glazed screen partition of the Janisol C4 series or a
Jansen VISS façade, a result of 60 minutes integrity and insulation would be
expected were it tested in accordance with EN1634-1.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 36 of 157

Mullions & It is proposed that mid-rails/transoms may be incorporated in to the Janisol C4

Transoms system. Test report number 09-V-437 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a
double-leaf doorset which opened towards the furnace. The tested specimen
included a transom at approximately 1/3 height (up from the floor) in the in-active
leaf. The glazing beads were on the exposed face. The tested construction
achieved 87 minutes integrity and insulation. Test report number 10-V-151 was a
test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a double-leaf doorset which opened towards the
furnace. The tested specimen included a transom at approximately 1/3 height (up
from the floor) in the in-active leaf, the upper section of which was then divided
vertically by a further mullion. The glazing beads were on the exposed face. The
tested construction achieved 62 minutes integrity and insulation. Test report
number 10-V-152 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on two single-leaf doorsets,
one of which opened towards the furnace and one away from the furnace. The
specimen which opened towards the furnace included three transoms at
approximately even spacing up the door leaf. The glazing beads were on the
exposed face. The tested construction achieved 74 minutes integrity and insulation.

In the absence of mid-rails/transoms the Janisol C4 system has proved itself

capable of achieving 60 minutes integrity and insulation as described previously in
the listed test results. The above listed test reports show that the inclusion of a
transom is not of detriment to the performance of the Janisol C4 doorset.

In fact; it is considered that the inclusion of a mid-rail / transom will serve to

strengthen the door itself and also provide increased support to the glass. This will
only be of benefit to the construction as a whole. The use of mid-rails / transoms
can, therefore, be positively appraised when included in a construction with the un-
rebated meeting / leading edge.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 37 of 157

Glazing Options The doorset tested in report No. WF 403121 was glazed with Contraflam 60-3
(27 mm thick) with dimensions of 2163 mm high by 966 mm wide (giving an
area of 2.09m2 per leaf). It is proposed that the doorset may be glazed with
those glasses listed below.

Test Glass Type Integrity and Tested Dimensions (per leaf)

Report No. Insulation Test Result

LP- 2873 mm high x 1268 mm wide

Pyrostop 60-101 (23 mm) 62 minutes
1328.1/08 (3.64m2)
Fireswiss Foam 60-23 (23 2362 mm high x 948 mm wide
10-V-151 62 minutes
mm) (2.24m2)
2314 mm high x 1232 mm wide
289689 Contraflam 60 (25 mm) 70 minutes
(2.85m2)
Pyrostop 60-181 (42mm
thick double glazed unit)
2364 mm high x 1249 mm wide
08-V-364 (23mm Pyrostop, 8mm 73 minutes
(2.95m2)
spacer, 11mm thick 55.2
laminated glass)*
Contraflam 60 DGU (41
mm thick double glazed
2364 mm high x 902 mm wide
09-V-437 unit) (25mm Contraflam 87 minutes
(2.13m2)
60, 10mm spacer, 6mm
tempered glass)*
Pyrobel 25 ISO (41mm
thick double glazed unit)
2007 mm high x 1248 mm wide
09-V-438 (26mm Pyrobel 25, 6mm 76 minutes
(2.5m2)
spacer, 9mm thick 44.2
laminated glass)*
Fireswiss Foam 60-23 DGU
(42mm thick double glazed
unit) (23mm Fireswiss 2365 mm high x 1061 mm wide
10-V-146 70 minutes
Foam 60, 10mm spacer, (2.51m2)
9mm thick 44.2 laminated
glass)**
* This configuration may be used with the Pyro fire glass on either the exposed or non-
exposed face.
** This configuration may only be used with the Pyro fire glass on the non-exposed face.

The maximum dimension increases described previously in this report may be

applied to doorsets containing the un-rebated meeting edge, and any of the
glasses listed above, provided that the maximum allowable is within the range
allowable for that glass and is proven by test, assessment (by Warringtonfire)
or certification evidence.

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that the Janisol C4 system

may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The glass must be approved
for use within insulated steel doorsets for integrity and insulation periods of 60
minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire approval as per the
requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be taken to
ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum
dimensions etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this
assessment and the Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire
approval take precedence.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 38 of 157

Given the above discussion it is considered permissible that the above listed
glasses may be used in a doorset containing the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge.

Infill Panels The doorset tested in report No. WF403121 did not contain an infill panel (of a
material other than glass). It is proposed, however, that infill panels may be used in
the Janisol C4 system where an unrebated meeting / leading edge is used.

Test report No. 09-V-438 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on a Janisol C4
double-leaf doorset. Each leaf was split in to two apertures by the use of a
transom. The lower aperture, in each leaf, contained an infill panel rather than
glazing. The infill panel was nominally 39 mm thick and composed 2x layers of
18mm thick plasterboard and a 1 mm thick steel sheet on each face. The different
layers were bonded together using an adhesive referenced article number 450.096.
The panel had dimensions of 1248 mm wide by 290 mm high. The construction
achieved a fire resistance integrity and insulation performance of 76 minutes.

This demonstrates that the use of an infill panel of this construction is capable of
contributing to a successful test, as per the requirements of EN 1634-1, when fitted
within the Janisol C4 system.

The use of this panel in the Janisol C4 system as a door leaf infill or as a side light
or fan light infill is, therefore, considered permissible. The infill panel must be
constructed as described in the above mentioned test report. The test report also
provides details of the beading, intumescent materials, mineral fibre strip and
silicone which must also be used.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 39 of 157

Assessed Performance – Economy 60

Introduction The Economy 60 system is a steel profile based system used for the construction of
doors and associated screens (fan lights and side lights). Primarily composed of
steel profile sections which are welded together and the apertures glazed.
Uninsulated steel glazing beads are then affixed. The system is designed to provide
30 or 60 minutes integrity only (depending upon construction), as per EN1634-1,
and has been extensively tested.

There are two iterations of the Economy system; Economy 50 and Economy 60.
The only difference between the two iterations is that the Economy 50 is 50 mm
thick and the Economy 60 is 60 mm thick. Empirical test evidence shows that there
is no noticeable difference in performance of the two iterations in regards the
integrity requirements of EN1634-1. The main factor, influencing how long the
system is able to maintain its fire resistance integrity during test, is actually more
closely related to the material with which the construction is glazed rather than with
which iteration of the profile is used. This is borne true by the information shown in
the following table.
Economy 50 /
Fire Resistance
Test Report No. Economy 60 Glass
Integrity
iteration

418 360-2 60 34 mins Pyroswiss 6mm

3303/5472 60 38 mins Pyroswiss 6mm

04120208 50 122 mins Contraflam Lite 13mm

08052610-1 50 85 mins Contraflam Lite 13mm

4052508 50 92 mins Contraflam Lite 13mm

05-V-009 50 54 mins Contraflam Lite 14mm

271 34047 50 35 mins Fireswiss E30-8mm

271 34770 50 32 mins Fireswiss E30-8mm

450 898-10 50 47 mins Contraflam Lite 13mm

10-E-557 50 30 mins Pyrotech 630 6mm

11-V-001 50 39 mins Pyrotech 630 6mm

The concern of increased rates of deflection, in the Economy 60 iteration when

compared with the Economy 50 iteration, brought about by differential rates of
expansion of the exposed and unexposed faces (being more pronounced in the
Economy 60 iteration) is mitigated by the fact that the Economy system is an
uninsulated system and so the difference in rates of expansion (from the
exposed to the unexposed faces) is minimal.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 40 of 157

In fact, as can be seen in the above table, the constructions which achieved
the three longest fire resistance integrity results were the Economy 50
iteration. It is considered that this was probably influenced more by the fact
that all three were glazed with Contraflam Lite (13 mm thick) glass than by any
other factor. This adds confidence in the use of Economy 50 iteration test data
in support of the Economy 60 iteration. It is, therefore, considered appropriate
that both Economy 50 and Economy 60 iteration test data may be used in
support of the Economy 60 iteration and will, hence forth, simply be referred to
as the Economy 60 system.

When differences in the construction occur, or differences in what is allowable

occur, between a 30 minute and a 60 minute fire resistance integrity
requirement, for the Economy 60 system it shall have been specifically
mentioned within the following sections. Where no specific mention is made, it
shall be assumed that the discussion contained therein applies to both 30 and
60 minute fire resistance integrity requirements. As is discussed later within
eYV t?T`_`^j 5/ q ;ddVddVU IVcW`c^R_TVu dVTeZ`_ `W eYZd cVa`ce: Ze dY`f]U SV
noted that a claim of 60 minutes fire resistance integrity performance is only
possible when the doorset is glazed with Contraflam Lite (13mm) glass.

There is no direct test evidence of an Economy 60 doorset tested with an un-

rebated meeting / leading edge. It is proposed that an Economy 60 doorset
may be fitted with an un-rebated meeting / leading edge whilst the remaining
vertical edges and headers (of both leaves) incorporate a rebate resulting,
therefore, in the door being single-action. This approach is considered
acceptable due to the fact that there is direct test data, for this un-rebated
meeting edge, for both the Janisol 2 and Janisol C4 doorests as shown in test
report numbers 319031809 & WF403121 respectively. Using this test data as a
basis; it can be assumed that due to the uninsulated nature of the Economy 60
system, lower degrees of differential rates of expansion (between the exposed
and un-exposed faces) will be encountered, and, therefore, the doorsets will be
more stable than the insulated systems (Janisol 2 and Janisol C4).

A typified cross section is shown below.

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 41 of 157

Configuration The constructions tested in report Noud. 319031809 & WF403121 (for the
Janisol 2 and Janisol C4 systems), upon which the use of the un-rebated
meeting / leading edge in the Economy 60 system is based, both composed
double leaf doorsets and an associated fan light and side light. Empirical test
evidence shows this to be a very onerous configuration in which to test a
doorset due to the likelihood of differential rates of expansion and deformation
and subsequent gap formation and failure of the test criteria. There is also
direct test evidence of the Economy 60 system in various forms of
configuration; single-leaf, double-leaf, with fanlights and with side lights q all
achieving the required 30 or 60 minute integrity requirement (dependent upon
construction).

As per the direct field of application rules stated within EN 1634-1 the addition
of a second side panel (on the side where none were tested) is allowable.

Likewise the removal of the side panel and / or the fan light is also considered
acceptable.

The reduction of the doorset from double leaf to single leaf is also considered
acceptable.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 42 of 157

Orientation It is proposed that a 60 minute fire resistance integrity performance should be

(Inwards or expected were the Economy 60 system, when incorporating the unrebated
Outwards Opening meeting edge, exposed to the heating conditions of the EN 1634-1 test
Direction) method; when opening towards or away from the furnace.

The below table shows a list of test reports and the corresponding opening
direction.
Test Report No. Construction Type Opening Direction

Both Towards and Away

418 360-2 Single-leaf
from the Furnace

3303/5472 Single-leaf Towards Furnace

08052610-1 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

4052508 Single-leaf Towards Furnace

04120208 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

Both Towards and Away

05-V-009 Double-leaf
from the Furnace

271 34047 Double-leaf Towards Furnace

271 34770 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

450 898 Double-leaf Towards Furnace

10-E-557 Double-leaf Away from Furnace

11-V-001 Single-leaf Away from Furnace

It is generally accepted that opening away from the heating conditions of the test is
the more onerous set of conditions for metal leaves hung in metal frames. This is
certainly true of doors that do not contain any insulating material. The main factor
being the tendency for metal door leaves to bow towards the heating conditions at
the mid-height and to bow away from the heating conditions at the top and the
bottom of the leaf. In a door that opens away from the heating conditions of the
test, this tendency to bow away from the heating conditions at the top and bottom
of the door leaf, means that the leaf will bow away from the doorstop / rebate of
the frame. This increases the chance of failure due to the passage of flames and
hot gases to the unexposed face. Furthermore failure by gap gauge criteria also
SVT`^Vd ^`cV ]Z\V]j- LYV t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu hZeYZ_ eYV eVde
standard, EN1634-1, states that for hinged metal leaf doors, which do not contain
insulation material, hung in metal frames (as is the case for the Economy 60
system); it is possible to identify opening away from the furnace as the worst case
direction and so testing shall be carried out from that direction in order to cover the
doorset for fire from both directions. The large body of test evidence submitted in
support of the Economy 60 system meets this requirement.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 43 of 157

Furthermore; the test reports submitted in support of the unrebated meeting edge,
for the Janisol 2 & Janid`] =3 djdeV^d+ G`ud- 208/207/8 & O@3/2010 'upon which
the use of the un-rebated meeting / leading edge in the Economy 60 system is
based) both opened away from the furnace and so can be said to have been tested
in the more onerous direction. Further to this; they were tested with a fan light and
a side light (on one side only) which is generally considered to be the most onerous
configuration for exposing the construction to risk of deflection, gap formation and
subsequent failure.

It is considered, therefore, that an Economy 60 doorset may be used incorporating

the un-rebated meeting / leading edge, which opens in either direction.

Glazing Beads It is proposed that the Economy 60 system may incorporate the use of several
different glazing bead designs. All are un-insulated and are of a steel
construction.

Test report No. 05-V-009 incorporated the Economy 60 standard clip on

glazing beads (article number# 402.125Z). These glazing beads were on the
exposed face and are clipped on to stud fasteners (article number# 450.007).
The test achieved 54 minutes integrity.

Test report No. 05-V-009 also incorporated the use of box section glazing
beads (article number# 402.112Z). These glazing beads were on the un-
exposed face and are clipped on to stud fasteners (article number# 450.007).
The test achieved 54 minutes integrity.

Test report No. 450898-10 incorporated the use of the Economy 60 standard
clip on glazing beads (article number# 402.125Z). These glazing beads were
on the exposed face and were fixed using screws (article number# 450.007).
The test achieved 47 minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 450898-10 also incorporated the use of box section glazing
beads (article number# 402.120Z) measuring 20mm tall by 20mm wide
(1.5mm wall thickness). These glazing beads were on the exposed face and
were fixed using screws (article number# 450.007). The test achieved 47
minutes integrity and insulation.

Test report No. 08052610-1 incorporated the use of the Economy 60 standard
clip on glazing beads (article number# 402.125Z). These glazing beads were
on the exposed face and were fixed using screws (article number# 450.007).
The test achieved 85 minutes integrity and insulation.

It is also proposed that two other types of glazing bead may be used on the
Economy 60 system; namely an L-shaped bracket (fixed using screws) and a
tYjScZUu ejaV- LYZd tYjScZUu ejaV Zd an amalgamation of the L-shaped angle and
box section designs and is referenced 62.509GV+GC. These glazing beads are
fixed using screws (article number# 550.515).
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 44 of 157

There is no direct test evidence for either of these glazing beads in the Economy 60
system. It is considered, however, given their all steel construction and the test
data that is available of their successful inclusion in Janisol 2 and Janisol C4
doorsets, their use in the Economy 60 system can be positively appraised. The L-
shaped glazing bead is to have a minimum wall thickness of 2mm and a minimum
dimensions of 20mm x 20mm. LYV tYjScZUu X]RkZ_X SVRU Zd e` SV Rd aVc eYV design
referenced 62.509GV+GC used in the Janisol C4 test report No. 09-V-438.
It is further proposed that the glazing beads may be positioned on the exposed
or un-exposed face of the construction.

Generally, in constructions like the Economy 60 system, the glass is held in

place by the flange of the profile, on one side, and a glazing bead on the other
side. Exposing the glazing bead to the heating conditions of the test is the
more onerous condition due to the simple fact that the beads are less secure,
than the flange of the profile, and may detach during the test (which decreases
the protection offered to the edge of the glass and also increases the potential
of the glass to fall out).

The tests mentioned previously show that the Economy 60 system has maintained
a 30 or 60 minute fire resistance integrity performance (dependent upon glazing)
when it has been subject to test with the glazing bead on the exposed, more
onerous, face of the construction. There are also instances where the beading was
positioned on the unexposed face.

Be Zd R]d` ac`a`dVU eYRe eYV X]RkZ_X SVRUd ^Rj SV fdVU Z_ R tTV_ecZTu WRdYZ`_- Z-V-
glazing beads are used on both faces q the profile does not contain a flange.

Test report No. DMT-DO-50-561-R1 incorporated the use of a standard clip-on

glazing bead (Article No. 402.112). This particular glazing bead is slightly smaller
(12mm x 20mm) than the other standard clip-on glazing bead, tested previously. It
hRd WZeeVU Z_ eYZd tTV_ecZTu WRdYZ`_. i.e. the glazing beads were on the exposed and
the un-exposed faces. The test achieved 108 minutes integrity.

It is considered that the above test example coupled with the robust, all steel
construction of all four types of glazing bead (standard, box section, L-shape
R_U tYjScZUu( R_U eYV VieV_dZgV eVde VgZUV_TV RgRZ]RS]V Z_ eYVZc t_`c^R]u fdV '`_
`_V dZUV `_]j(: eYV tTV_ecZTu djdeV^ ^Rj SV a`dZeZgV]j RaacRZdVU W`c fdV hZeY R
doorset containing the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

The glazing beads must, however, be fitted as per the manufRTefcVcud

instructions/guidelines and in the same fashion as reported in the relevant
referenced test.

Given the above it is considered that up to a 60 minute fire resistance integrity

performance would be expected (dependent upon glazing) were the Economy 60
system exposed to the heating conditions of the EN 1634-1 test method; with the
glazing beads on the exposed or unexposed face `c hYV_ fdZ_X eYV t=V_ecZTu
glazing method.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 45 of 157

Hinge Types It is proposed that the Economy 60 doorset may be fitted with one of several types
of hinge; a stainless steel 3D weld on type (article number 555.227), a 3D weld on
type (article number 550.276), 3D screw on type (article number 555.268), a screw
on surface mounted type (article number 550.250), a pivot type (article number
550.298) and a weld on type (article number 550.229).

Each of the above listed types of hinge has been subject to at least one fire
resistance test (in accordance with EN1634-1) as part of the Economy 60
system.

The stainless steel 3D weld on type (article number 555.227) was tested and
reported in test report number: 3303/5472.
The 3D weld on type (article number 550.276) was tested and reported in test
report numbers: 271 34047, 4052508, 08052610 & 04120208.
The 3D screw on type (article number 555.268) was tested and reported in test
report number: 450 898-10.
The screw on surface mounted type (article number 550.250) was tested and
reported in test report number: 418 360-2.
The pivot type (article number 550.298) was tested and reported in test report
number: 05-V-009.
The weld on type (article number 550.229) was tested and reported in test report
numbers: 11-V-001.

In all instances, an integrity result in excess of 30 minutes was achieved. The

above referenced test reports were a mixture of single-leaf & double-leaf
doorsets which opened towards and away from the fire.

The cumulative effect of this large body of test evidence is to demonstrate that the
Economy 60 system can achieve a 30 minutes integrity performance, as per the
requirements of EN1634-1, when incorporating a variety of different hinge types.
The use, therefore, of these various different hinge types with the Economy 60
system, for 30 minute integrity requirements is permissible.

The three tests which achieved fire resistance integrity results in excess of 60
minutes (4052508, 08052610 & 04120208) were all fitted with the 3D weld on type
hinge (article number 550.276). Where a fire resistance integrity
performance of 60 minutes, as per EN 16341-1, is required only this type
of hinge is permissible.

The hinges must SV WZeeVU Rd aVc eYV ^R_fWRTefcVcud Z_decfTeZ`_d.XfZUV]Z_Vd R_U Z_

the same fashion as reported in the relevant referenced test.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 46 of 157

Glazing Strips It is proposed that the glazing strip may be one of several different options.
There are two ?I>F X]RkZ_X hVReYVc decZa `aeZ`_d ';ceZT]V G`ud- 344-/36 &
455.037( R_U dVgVcR] =VcR^ZT @ZScV KecZa `aeZ`_d ';ceZT]V G`ud- 451.020,
451.021 & 451.027).

;ceZT]V G`ud 344-/36 & 455.037 (EPDM) were included as part of the tested
construction in report No. 08052610 in which a test result of 85 minutes
integrity was achieved.

Article No 455.037 (EPDM) was included as part of the tested construction in

report No. 271 34047 in which a test result of 35 minutes integrity was
achieved.

;ceZT]V G`ud 341.021 & 451.027 (Ceramic Fibre Strip) were included as part of
the tested construction in report No. 4052508 in which a test result of 93
minutes integrity was achieved.

;ceZT]V G`ud 341.020 & 451.021 (Ceramic Fibre Strip) were included as part of
the tested construction in report No. 11-V-001 in which a test result of 39
minutes integrity was achieved.

As can be seen from the above listed results the various glazing strips and
seals have been included in many successful tests (in fact the above are just a
selection of the total catalogue of successful tests).

The above discussed glazing strips may be used on single or double-leaf

doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

Increase in It is proposed that the overrun achieved by a construction when tested, may
Dimensions be used to off-set an equivalent increase in either of the dimensions of the
doorset (width or height), subject to a maximum surface area, when compared
to the 30 or 60 minute integrity requirement of the doorset. Given that there is
no direct test data for the Economy 60 doorset with an un-rebated meeting /
leading edge; it is thought prudent to limit the dimension increases to those
given to the Janisol 2 system for 30 minutes (as tested in report No.
319031809) integrity requirement and the Janisol C4 system for 60 minutes (as
tested in report No. WF 403121) integrity requirement.

The 8 minute (or 26% - capped at 25%) overrun achieved by the construction
tested in report No. 319031809 results in allowable leaf dimensions, for a double or
single leaf door with a 30 minute integrity requirement, of 2890 mm high (at 1115
mm wide) or 1393 mm wide (at 2312 mm high), subject to a maximum area of
3.22m2.

The 6 minute (or 10%) overrun achieved by the construction tested in report No.
WF403121 results in allowable leaf dimensions, for a double or single leaf door with
a 60 minute integrity requirement, of 2543 mm high (at 1115 mm wide) or 1226
mm wide (at 2312 mm high), subject to a maximum area of 2.84m2.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 47 of 157

The use of the above mentioned test reports, in support of the Economy 60
system, is considered acceptable because there is also a large body of
supporting test evidence of the Economy 60 system being tested at dimensions
greater than those tested above albeit with double rebated meeting / leading
edges.

It has been requested by the sponsor of this report that a limit, of a maximum
of 9260mm, be put on the total gap length (head, jambs & meeting edge) of a
construction where a smoke leakage performance is required. i.e. the total
smoke leakage shall not exceed 3m3/hour/per metre length at ambient
temperature and a pressure of 25Pa. This claim of smoke leakage performance
has not been verified by Warringtonfire and is included simply for information
and as a courtesy to the sponsor of the report.

Unequal Leaves It is proposed that doorsets incorporating leaves of unequal width may be
permitted. MdZ_X eYV cf]Vd XZgV_ hZeYZ_ eYV t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde
JVdf]edu Z_ ?G 0523-1, it is permissible that one leaf may be increased in width
and one leaf reduced in width.

Using these rules it is permissible that one leaf may have a width up to the
(sponsors self-imposed) maximum of 1100 mm and the other leaf decreased
by up to 50%.

Fan Lights & Side Test report No. 319031809 contained a fan light measuring 2216 mm wide by
Lights 501 mm high. The tested construction achieved 38 minutes integrity. The 8
minute (or 26% - limited to 25%) integrity overrun achieved by the
construction tested in report No. 319031809 may be used to offset an increase
in the allowable dimensions of the fan light. This results in a fan light having
allowable dimensions of 2770mm wide (at 501 mm high) or 626 mm high (at
2216 mm wide).

Test report No. 319031809 also contained a side light measuring 606 mm wide
by 2271 mm high. The tested construction achieved 38 minutes integrity. The
8 minute (or 26% - limited to 25%) integrity overrun achieved by the
construction tested in report No. 319031809 may be used to offset an increase
in the allowable dimensions of the side light. This results in a side light having
allowable dimensions of 757 mm wide (at 2271 mm high) or 2838 mm high (at
606 mm wide).

The above discussed dimensions may be applied to the fan and side lights of
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge for the Economy 60 construction with a 30 minute integrity requirement.
They also apply equally to doorsets containing one or two side lights.

Test report No. WF403121 contained a fan light measuring 2218 mm wide by
503 mm high. The tested construction achieved 66 minutes integrity. The 6
minute (or 10%) integrity overrun achieved by the construction tested in report
No. WF403121 may be used to offset an increase in the allowable dimensions
of the fan light. This results in a fan light having allowable dimensions of
2439mm wide (at 503 mm high) or 553 mm high (at 2218 mm wide).
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 48 of 157

Test report No. WF403121 also contained a side light measuring 608 mm wide
by 2273 mm high. The tested construction achieved 66 minutes integrity. The
6 minute (or 10%) integrity overrun achieved by the construction tested in
report No. 403121 may be used to offset an increase in the allowable
dimensions of the side light. This results in a side light having allowable
dimensions of 669 mm wide (at 2273 mm high) or 2500 mm high (at 608 mm
wide).

The above discussed dimensions may be applied to the fan and side lights of
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge for the Economy 60 construction with a 60 minute integrity requirement.
They also apply equally to doorsets containing one or two side lights.

Furthermore test report No. 3303-5472 details a test carried out to EN 1634-1
on a single-leaf doorset which also incorporated a fan light and side lights all
constructed using the Economy 60 system. The construction achieved 38
minutes integrity. Test report No. 4052508 details a test carried out to EN
1634-1 on a single-leaf doorset which also incorporated a fan light and side
lights all constructed using the Economy 60 system. The construction achieved
92 minutes integrity. Test report No. 10-E-557 details a test carried out to EN
1634-1 on a double-leaf doorset which also incorporated a fan light and side
lights all constructed using the Economy 60 system. The construction achieved
30 minutes integrity.

Be Zd ac`a`dVU eYRe R_j `W eYV R]eVc_ReZgV X]RddVd ]ZdeVU Z_ eYV tA]RkZ_X HaeZ`_du
section of this report (for use in the door leaves) may also be used in the side lights
and fan lights. The maximum dimensions allowable, for these alternative glasses,
shall be the same as those described above on the proviso that those other glasses
have allowable dimensions that are either the same as or in excess of those above
(provided that the maximum allowable is within the range allowable for that glass
and is proven by test, assessment (by Warringtonfire) or certification evidence).

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that side lights and fan lights
in the Economy 60 system may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The
glass must be approved for use within uninsulated steel doorsets/screens for
integrity periods of 60 minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire
approval as per the requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be
taken to ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum dimensions
etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this assessment and the
Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire approval take precedence. It
should be noted that this does not confer Certifire approval upon the doorset.

The above discussed dimensions may be applied to the fan and side lights of
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge. They also apply equally to doorsets containing one or two side lights.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 49 of 157

Drop Seals The construction tested in report No. 319031809 included the use of an
automatic drop seal (article No# 555.371) along the bottom edge of both
leaves. As discussed previously a fire resistance integrity and insulation
performance of 38 minutes was achieved. The construction tested in report No.
WF403121 also included the use of the same automatic drop seal (article No#
555.371) along the bottom edge of both leaves. As discussed previously a fire
resistance integrity and insulation performance of 66 minutes was achieved.

In each of the above cases; an identical construction was then tested to EN

1634-2 R_U cVa`ceVU Z_ eVde cVa`ce G`ud- 207/806/4-2 and 318091705-1. A
maximum smoke leakage of 18.6m3/h and 23.1m3/h was recorded during each
test, respectively. The maximum allowable, as per requirements of EN 13501-
2, for a construction of this type is 30m3/h. The smoke leakage at the
threshold gap is not counted towards the overall smoke leakage rate recorded
during test to EN 1634-3, however, the combination of the above mentioned
test reports demonstrates that the inclusion of this automatic drop seal is not
of detriment to either the smoke leakage rate or the fire resistance
performance of the doorset for 30 or 60 minute integrity requirements.

The fact that each of the doorsets upon which this drop seal was tested, were
insulated, is considered an irrelevance due to the fact that the drop seals are
positioned in such a way that no benefit will be given to them by the inclusion
of insulating material within the door leaf bottom edge profile.

The use of the drop seal (article No# 555.371), on single or double-leaf,
Economy 60 doorset with an un-rebated meeting / leading edge can, therefore,
be positively appraised for doorsets with either a 30 minute or 60 minute
integrity requirement. This report does not, however, confer a formal
classification upon this construction.

Door Closers & The construction tested in report No. 08052610-1 included the use of a surface
Door Operators ^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; LK 82 <u WZiVU e` eYV
unexposed face of the leaf. The construction achieved 85 minutes fire
resistance integrity. This closer may, therefore, be used on an Economy 60
doorset with a 30 or 60 minute integrity requirement.

The construction tested in report No. 12-000452-PR01 included the use of a

T`_TVR]VU W]``c ^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tA?Q? <LK 44/ @-Au-
The construction achieved 35 minutes fire resistance integrity. This closer may
only, therefore, be used on an Economy 60 doorset with a 30 minute integrity
requirement.

The construction tested in report No. 11-V-0001 included the use of a surface
^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tA?Q? LK 4///u WZiVU e` eYV Via`dVU
face of the leaf. The construction achieved 39 minutes fire resistance integrity.
This closer may only, therefore, be used on an Economy 60 doorset with a 30
minute integrity requirement.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 50 of 157

The construction tested in report No. DMT-DO-50-561-R1 included the use of a

dfcWRTV ^`f_eVU Rfe`^ReZT U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; LK 87u WZiVU e`
both leaves on the unexposed face. The construction achieved 108 minutes fire
resistance integrity. This closer may, therefore, be used on an Economy 60
doorset with a 30 or 60 minute integrity requirement.

As discussed previously; there is no direct test evidence for the Economy 60

doorset with an un-rebated meeting / leading edge. It is considered, however,
that the location of surface mounted door closers / operators should be taken
in to consideration. They are positioned towards the hinge side and, therefore,
are not in close proximity to the un-rebated meeting / leading edge. Likewise,
for concealed floor mounted door closers, their position is not considered to be
an issue. Furthermore; all of the above referenced tests achieved a fire
resistance integrity performance of, 30 or 60 minutes as required. The use,
therefore, of the specific door closers / operators mentioned above, on
doorsets with the unrebated meeting / leading edge can be positively
appraised.

Lock Options The construction tested in report No. 308/207/8 Z_T]fUVU eYV fdV `W eYV t=Rc]
@fYc ;TeZ`_ F`ceZTV E`T\u 'RceZT]V G`- 444-8/7(- LYV eVde RTYZVgVU 27 ^Z_feVd
integrity and insulation. The latch was not engaged during the test and so its
use is optional. This applies equally to double-leaf doorsets and single leaf
doorsets.

The construction tested in report No. WF403121 also included the use of the
t=Rc] @fYc <?186 GI24 F`ceZTV E`T\u- LYV eVde RTYZVgVU 55 ^Z_feVd Z_eVXcZej
and insulation. The latch was not engaged during the test and so its use is
optional. This applies equally to double-leaf doorsets and single leaf doorsets.

The lock has proven itself in test in both the Janisol 2 and Janisol C4 doorsets
when incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

In the absence of direct test evidence of the Economy 60 doorset with an un-
rebated meeting / leading edge, for up to 60 minute integrity applications, the
above test evidence is deemed appropriate despite it being for the Janisol 2
and Janisol C4 doorset systems (which both have an insulation rating). This
should be coupled with the fact the Economy 60 doorset has been tested
_f^Vc`fd eZ^Vd 'hZeY R t_`c^R]u cVSReVU ^VVeZ_X . ]VRUZ_X VUXV( hZeY R ]`T\
fitted. Examples include test report number: 4052508, 271 34047 and 450 898-
10. All tests achieved the required 30 or 60 minute integrity rating.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 51 of 157

Supporting It is proposed that the Economy 60 doorset may be fitted within one of several
Construction types of supporting construction; concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel
stud partition, plasterboard clad timber stud partition or an Economy 60 glazed
screen- ;d ^V_eZ`_VU Z_ eYV t;ddf^aeZ`_du dVTeZ`_ `W eYZd cVa`ce q it is assumed
that any supporting construction, into which the doorset is being fitted, has
been subject to separate test and has achieved the appropriate fire resistance
rating.

A concrete/blockwork supporting construction was used, and reported, in the

following test report numbers: 418 360-2, 3303-5472, 05-V-009, 271 34770 &
04120208 (amongst others).
No test evidence has been supplied showing the Economy 60 doorset mounted
in a plasterboard clad steel stud partition supporting construction.
No test evidence has been supplied showing the Economy 60 doorset mounted
in a plasterboard clad timber stud partition supporting construction.
An Economy 60 glazed screen supporting construction was used, and reported, in
test report number DMT-DO-50-561-R1.
The constructions contained within the above referenced test reports were of
various dimensions, containing various glasses and in various formats (single-
leaf/double-leaf, opening towards/opening away, with side-light/without side-light,
with fan-light/without fan-light etc). The cumulative effect of this large body of test
evidence is to demonstrate that the Economy 60 system (in a wide variety of
formats) can achieve a 30 or 60 minute integrity performance, as per the
requirements of EN1634-1, when mounted within a concrete/blockwork supporting
construction.

There is no direct test evidence showing the Economy 60 doorset being subject to
a fire resistance test, in accordance with EN1634-1, when mounted within a
plasterboard clad steel stud partition or a plasterboard clad timber stud partition.
The Field of Direct Application rule 13.5.4. e) within EN 1634-0 deReVd eYRe rp-Wor
uninsulated metal doors, the result of a test in a rigid supporting construction is
Raa]ZTRS]V e` eYRe U``c RddV^S]j ^`f_eVU Z_ R W]ViZS]V T`_decfTeZ`_p--s- LYZd Zd UfV
to the reasoning that a flexible supporting construction will deflect/bend in
sympathy with the doorset, mounted within it during test, thus reducing the risk of
gap formation (and subsequent failure) around the perimeter of the doorset
construction. When mounted within a rigid supporting construction
(concrete/blockwork), as was the case in the above mentioned test reports, the
door frame is held rigidly in place by the anchors (provided appropriate anchors in
appropriate quantity are used). This is considered more onerous as the expected
deflection of the door leaf will therefore be exacerbated by the lack of sympathetic
movement in the door frame. This is not the case in the flexible supporting
constructions (plasterboard clad timber stud partitions or plasterboard clad steel
stud partitions) where the supporting construction is expected to deflect/bend in
sympathy with the doorset.

Test report No. DMT-DO-50-561-R1 is a test of an Economy 60 glazed doorset with

a fan light fitted within a glazed screen partition of the Economy 60 series (the two
vertical edges were left free i.e. not fixed back to the test frame). This allows for
the infinite addition to the glazed screen (on each side of the doorset). It is not
considered that this represents an increased risk to the proposed un-rebated
meeting / leading edge of the doorset because this screen is more likely to deflect
in sympathy with the doorset than if it were fixed back to a rigid supporting
construction.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 52 of 157

It can be concluded, therefore, that were the Economy 60 doorset fitted within a
concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel stud partition, a plasterboard clad
timber stud partition or an Economy 60 glazed screen, a result of up to 60 minutes
integrity (dependent upon construction) would be expected were it tested in
accordance with EN1634-1.

Mullions & It is proposed that mullions/transoms may be incorporated in to the Economy

Transoms 60 system. Test report number 04120208 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1
on a double-leaf doorset which opened away from the furnace. The tested
specimen included a transom at a height of 1050 mm in the in-active leaf. The
glazing beads were on the exposed face. The tested construction achieved 122
minutes integrity.

The Economy 60 doorset system has proved itself capable of achieving up to

60 minutes integrity (dependent upon construction) as described in several test
reports cited throughout the Economy 60 section of this report (including 418
360-2, 4052508, 10-E-557, 04120208 & 08052610-1 (amongst others)).

Empirical test evidence demonstrates that the inclusion of a mullion or transom

does not have a negative impact upon the test result achieved.

In fact; it is considered that the inclusion of a mullion / transom will serve to

strengthen the door itself, increase the rigidity (and therefore reduce
susceptibility to deformation and gap formation) and also provide increased
support to the glass. This will only be of benefit to the construction as a whole.
The use of mullions / transoms can, therefore, be positively appraised when
included in a construction with the un-rebated meeting / leading edge.

Glazing Options The un-rebated meeting edge Janisol 2 and Janisol C4 constructions tested in
report numbers 319031809 & WF403121, were glazed with Contraflam 30-2
(20 mm thick) and Contraflam 60-3 (27mm thick), respectively. Both of these
glasses are insulating in nature. The Economy 60 system is an integrity only
system and as such has different glazing requirements.

Test Glass Type Integrity and Tested Dimensions (per leaf)

Report No. Insulation Test Result

2375 mm high x 1110 mm wide

418 360-2 Pyroswiss (6 mm) 34 minutes
(2.64m2)
2782 mm high x 1285 mm wide
271 34770 Fireswiss E30 (8 mm) 32 minutes
(3.57m2)
2337 mm high x 920 mm wide
10-E-557 Pyrotech 630 (6 mm) 30 minutes
(2.15m2)
2187 mm high x 1200 mm wide
08052610-1 Contraflam Lite (13mm) 85 minutes
(2.62m2)

As can be seen from the information in the above table; a claim of 60 minutes
fire resistance integrity performance is only possible when the doorset is glazed
with Contraflam Lite (13mm) glass.

The maximum dimension increases described previously in this report (in the
tB_TcVRdV Z_ >Z^V_dZ`_du dVTeZ`_( may be applied to doorsets containing the un-
rebated meeting edge, and any of the glasses listed above, provided that the
maximum allowable is within the range allowable for that glass and is proven
by test, assessment (by Warringtonfire) or certification evidence.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 53 of 157

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that the Economy 60

system may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The glass must be
approved for use within insulated steel doorsets for integrity periods of 60
minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire approval as per the
requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be taken to
ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum
dimensions etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this
assessment and the Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire
approval take precedence.

Given the above discussion it is considered permissible that the above listed
glasses may be used in a doorset containing the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge.

The Use of Infill Test report No. 4052508 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on an Economy
Panels 60 single-leaf doorset with side and fan lights. An infill panel, rather than glass,
was used in the side light (to the hinge side of the door). The infill panel was
nominally 21 mm thick and composed 1x layer of 18mm thick plasterboard and
a 1.5 mm thick steel sheet on each face. The panel had dimensions of 1340
mm wide by 1883 mm high. The construction achieved a fire resistance
integrity performance of 92 minutes.

This demonstrates that the use of an infill panel of this construction is capable
of contributing to a successful test, as per the requirements of EN 1634-1,
when fitted within the Economy 60 system, albeit as a side light rather than in
the door leaf itself.

It is prudent to mention, also, that the thermocouples positioned on the

f_Via`dVU WRTV `W eYV aR_V] 'G`ud- 08 & 1/( UZU _`e cVT`cU R_j eV^aVcRefcVd
above 75'C for the first 30 minutes of the test and were measuring only 331'C
and 362'C respectively at the end of the test (92 minutes). These figures
correspond to the lower end of the range recorded by the thermocouples fitted
to the glazed areas of the test construction. The Economy 60 system is not
rated as providing insulation and so these thermocouple readings are
inconsequential, although they do serve to provide further confidence in the
panels ability to contribute to an integrity performance of 30 minutes, if tested
to EN1634-1. The photographs included in the above mentioned report also
show the panel still in place and intact at the end of the test. For these reasons
it is considered permissible that an infill panel of this construction may also be
used in the door leaf(s) of an Economy 60 doorset with a fire resistance
integrity requirement of up to 60 minutes.

The use of this panel in the Economy 60 system as a door leaf infill or as a side
light infill is, therefore, considered permissible. The infill panel must be
constructed as described in the above mentioned test report. The test report
also provides details of the associated system (beading, sealing materials etc)
which must also be used. Considering the demonstrated stability of this infill
panel, its use in a construction utilising the un-rebated meeting / leading edge,
is considered permissible.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 54 of 157

Assessed Performance – Art 15 (Economy 50)

Introduction The Art 15 (Economy 50) system is a steel profile based system used for the
construction of doors and associated screens (fan lights and side lights).
Primarily composed of steel profile sections which are welded together and the
apertures glazed. Uninsulated steel glazing beads are then affixed. The system
is designed to provide up to 120 minutes integrity and radiation (depending
upon configuration, construction and orientation) and has been extensively
tested. The below listed tests incorporated the un-rebated meeting/leading
edge design.

n LVde report No. 321121202-1; a double leaf doorset with side and fan lights
opening towards the heating conditions.

n LVde cVa`ce G`- 211/802/2-1; a double leaf doorset with a side light on one side
and fan lights opening away from the heating conditions.

n LVde cVa`ce G`- 12-32306704; a single leaf doorset with side and fan lights
opening away from the heating conditions.

n LVde cVa`ce G`- 12-32306704-2; a single leaf doorset with side and fan lights
opening towards the heating conditions.

n LVde cVa`ce G`- 12-32306703-2; a single leaf doorset with a side light on one side
and fan lights opening towards the heating conditions.

n LVde cVa`ce G`- 12-32306703; a single leaf doorset with a side light on one side
and fan lights opening away from the heating conditions.

With the exception of test No. 322091303-1 (which achieved 113 minutes integrity)
all of these tests achieved 120 minutes integrity as per EN 1634-1.

A typified cross section, of an un-latched, un-rebated double leaf configuration,

is shown below:
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 55 of 157

A typified cross section, of a latched, rebated double leaf configuration, is shown

below:

As can be seen from the above, the rebated design has a relatively small overlap
(rebate) on both the exposed and unexposed faces. This does, indeed, serve to
TcVReV R r]RSjcZ_eYs Re eYV ^VVeZ_X VUXV- This has been included for the purposes
of comparison of the two meeting edge designs. It is worth noting, at this point,
that for both the rebated and un-rebated meeting/leading edge designs, the
leaf/frame interfaces at both the hinge sides and at the header are all rebated q
resulting in the doorset being single acting regardless of whether the
meeting/leading edge is rebated or un-rebated.

There also exists a suite of tests carried out on the Art 15 system but which
incorporated the rebated leading/meeting edge. These tests are as follows:

n LVde cVa`ce G`- 1/04-Efectis-R000008; a double leaf doorset with side and fan
lights opening away from the heating conditions.

n Test report No. 2019-Efectis-R002338; a double leaf doorset opening away from
the heating conditions.

n Test report No. 2017-Efectis-R002362; two single leaf doorsets both of which
opened away from the heating conditions.

n Test report No. 2021-Efectis-R000067; two single leaf doorsets (referenced A and
B) where doorset A opened away from the heating conditions and doorset B
opened towards the heating conditions.

n Test report No. 2017-Efectis-R000782; a single leaf doorset with one side light
and a fan light opening away from the heating conditions.

The above tests using a rebated leading/meeting edge incorporated various

different glasses/glazing systems, bead types, hardware etc. These tests achieved a
range of results when tested as per EN 1634-1. These test reports are deemed
appropriate to use in support of the un-rebated Art 15 system and shall be utilised
where appropriate.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 56 of 157

Relationship to The Art 15 system is an uninsulated steel system. It is very similar to the Economy
Economy 50 50 system in that regard. It is also very similar in design q both have a 50mm
system profile depth and both have a 1.5mm wall thickness, however, there is one
significant difference. The Art 15 system uses narrower profiles which means the
leaf/frame rebate overlap RWW`cUVU Sj eYV ac`WZ]V r]VXs is reduced from the 22.5mm
of the Economy 50 system to 15mm for the Art 15 system. Comparative drawings
are shown below:

The basic Economy 50 construction comprises 50mm wide by 50mm deep steel
profiles (not accounting for flanges etc). This is shown below:
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 57 of 157

The basic Art 15 system is also 50mm deep (exposed to unexposed face) but
much narrower. This is shown below:

The result of this is that, where appropriate, test data generated using the
Economy 50 system may be used in support of the un un-rebated Art 15 system
as well.

Configuration Test report No. 321121202-1 was a test to EN 1634-1 on a double-leaf doorset
of the Art 15 system in which the meeting edge included the un-rebated
design. The construction included fan lights & two side lights and opened
towards the heating conditions. This test achieved 133 minutes integrity
performance.

Test report No. 322091303-1 was a test to EN 1634-1 on a double-leaf doorset

of the Art 15 system in which the meeting edge included the un-rebated
design. The construction included fan lights & one side light and opened away
from the heating conditions. This test achieved 113 minutes integrity
performance.

LVde cVa`ce G`ud- 12.212/56/3 & 12.212/56/3-2 were tests on an identical

construction comprising a single leaf with side lights on both sides and fan
lights. The constructions both utilised the un-rebated leading edge design. The
only difference being that test report No. 23/32306704 opened away from the
heating conditions and test report No. 23/32306704-2 opened towards the
heating conditions. Both speciemens achieved 133 minutes integrity
performance (without failure).

LVde cVa`ce G`ud- 12.212/56/2 & 12.212/56/2-2 were tests on an identical

construction comprising a single leaf with side lights on one side and fan lights.
The constructions both utilised the un-rebated leading edge design. The only
difference being that test report No. 23/32306703 opened away from the
heating conditions and test report No. 23/32306703-2 opened towards the
heating conditions. Both speciemens achieved 133 minutes integrity
performance (without failure).
).

Test experience shows the inclusion of fan and side lights to be a very onerous
configuration in which to test a doorset due to the likelihood of differential
rates of expansion and deformation and subsequent gap formation and failure
of the test criteria.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 58 of 157

As per the direct field of application rules stated within EN 1634-1 the addition
of a second side panel (on the side where none were tested) is allowable.

Likewise the removal of the side panel and / or the fan light is also considered
acceptable.

The reduction of the doorset from double leaf to single leaf is also considered
acceptable as there is direct test data for both configurations.

Construction orientation (opening direction) and performance duration will be

discussed in later sections of this report.

Orientation AZgV_ eYV eVde cVa`ced UVdTcZSVU Z_ eYV RS`gV r=`_WZXfcReZ`_s dVTeZ`_ `W eYZd
(Inwards or report there is sufficient test evidence available to allow the following
Outwards Opening combination of configurations and integrity ratings for an Art 15 doorset when
Direction) incorporating an un-rebated meeting/leading edge and an appropriate
glass/glazing system, if tested to EN 1634-1:

Opening Integrity period

Direction 30 60 90 120
Single Inwards OK OK OK OK
leaf Outwards OK OK OK OK
Double Inwards OK OK OK OK
leaf Outwards OK OK OK No
Note: Inwards opening direction = towards the heating conditions of the test and
outwards opening direction = away from the heating conditions of the test.
Note: Further requirements apply, for example in regards glass/glazing which shall be
detailed in the relevant section of this report.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 59 of 157

Glazing Beads It is proposed that the Art 15 system may incorporate the use of several
different glazing bead designs. All are un-insulated and are of a steel
construction.

Several tests incorporated the Art 15 standard clip on glazing beads (article
number# 401.025Z) on both the exposed and unexposed side of doorsets with
various configurations (single leaf, double leaf, side light, fan light etc) which
are clipped on to stud fasteners (article number # 450.007). Test report 2017-
Efectis-R000782, specifically, incorporated their use on the exposed face of a
single leaf specimen with side and fan lights which achieved 120 minutes
integrity. This is considered an onerous construction. Their use on all doorset
configurations assessed within this report, for the Art 15 system, can be
positively appraised for up to 120 minutes integrity.

Test report No. 2019-Efectis-R002338 incorporated the use of a reduced profile

glazing bead (article number# 62.512). This is shown here:

These glazing beads were on the exposed face and are screw fixed (article
number# 557.166) at 300mm centres. The test achieved 115 minutes integrity
at which point sustained flaming occurred at three quarters height on the
meeting edge. The glass had remained in place. There is no indication that the
failure of the test was due to the behaviour of these glazing beads. Therefore,
given their all-steel construction, their use on all doorset configurations
assessed within this report, for the Art 15 system, can be positively appraised
for up to 120 minutes integrity.

It is also proposed that three other types of glazing bead may be used on the
Art 15 system; namely an L-shaped bracket measuring 20mm by 20mm, a box
section glazing bead measuring 20mm by 20mm and a U-shaped glazing bead
measuring 24mm by 15mm. All three design are shown here:

These glazing beads shall be fixed using screws (article number# 550.515) at
no more than 300mm centres. The L-shaped and box section glazing beads are
both formed from minimum 2mm thick steel. The U-shaped glazing bead is
formed from 1.5mm thick steel (which is, in part, doubled over).
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 60 of 157

There is no direct test evidence for any of these glazing beads in the Art 15 system.
It is considered, however, given their all steel construction and screw fixing (which
may be considered more robust than clip on fixed beads), their use in the Art 15
system can be positively appraised.

It is further proposed that the glazing beads may be positioned on the exposed
or un-exposed face of the construction.

Generally, in constructions like the Art 15 system, the glass is held in place by
the flange of the profile, on one side, and a glazing bead on the other side.
Exposing the glazing bead to the heating conditions of the test is the more
onerous condition due to the simple fact that the beads are less secure, than
the flange of the profile, and may detach during the test (which decreases the
protection offered to the edge of the glass and also increases the potential of
the glass to fall out).

The tests mentioned previously show that the Art 15 system has maintained up to
a 120 minute fire resistance integrity performance (dependent upon construction)
when it has been subject to test with the glazing bead on the exposed, more
onerous, face of the construction - including the use of clip on beads (considered
the most onerous type, when compared to screw fixed beads). There are also
instances where the beading was positioned on the unexposed face.

Be Zd R]d` ac`a`dVU eYRe eYV X]RkZ_X SVRUd ^Rj SV fdVU Z_ R tTV_ecZTu WRdYZ`_- Z-V-
glazing beads are used on both faces q the profile does not contain a flange.

Unfortunately there is no supporting evidence for this ‘centric’ design

and so it’s use must be restricted to the screw fixed type of glazing bead
only (i.e. not the clip on type).

It is considered that due to the robust, all steel construction of the two screw
fixed types of glazing bead (box section and L-shape); eYV tTV_ecZTu djdeV^ ^Rj
be positively appraised for use with a doorset containing the un-rebated
meeting / leading edge.

The glazing beads ^fde+ Y`hVgVc+ SV WZeeVU Rd aVc eYV ^R_fWRTefcVcud

instructions/guidelines and in the same fashion as reported in the relevant
referenced test.

Given the above it is considered that up to a 120 minute fire resistance integrity
performance would be expected (dependent upon construction) were the Art 15
system exposed to the heating conditions of the EN 1634-1 test method; with the
X]RkZ_X SVRUd `_ eYV Via`dVU `c f_Via`dVU WRTV `c hYV_ fdZ_X eYV t=V_ecZTu
glazing method subject to the above limitations.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 61 of 157

Hinge Types It is proposed that the Art 15 doorset may be fitted with one of several types of
hinge; a screw on type (article number 557.182 & 557.183 q left and right
handed), a weld on type (article number 550.276) and a weld on type (article
number 555.064 & 555.065 q left and right handed).

Each of the above listed types of hinge has been subject to at least one fire
resistance test (in accordance with EN1634-1) as part of the Art 15 system.

The screw on type (article number 557.182 & 557.183 q left and right handed)
was tested and reported in test report G`ud- 12-32306704 & 23-32306704-2 (on
the exposed and unexposed face). These tests achieved in excess of 120 minutes.
The weld on type (article number 550.276) was tested and reported in test report
G`us. 2015-Efectis-R000008 (unexposed face) which achieved in excess of 90
minutes integrity and 321121202-1 (exposed face) which achieved in excess of
120 minutes integrity
The weld on type (article number 555.064 & 555.065 q left and right handed) was
eVdeVU R_U cVa`ceVU Z_ eVde cVa`ce G`ud- 1/07-Efectis-R002362 (unexposed face)
which achieved in excess of 60 minutes integrity and 2021-Efectis-R000067
(exposed face) which achieved in excess of 90 minutes integrity.

In all instances, an integrity result in excess of 90 minutes was achieved when

the hinges were positioned on the more onerous exposed face. Where a result
below 90 minutes integrity is mentioned above, the cause of the failure was
attributable to a factor other than the hinges used (glazing for example). The
above referenced test reports were a mixture of single-leaf & double-leaf
doorsets which opened towards and away from the fire.

The cumulative effect of this large body of test evidence is to demonstrate that the
Art 15 system can achieve a 90 minute integrity performance, as per the
requirements of EN1634-1, when incorporating a variety of different hinge types.
The use, therefore, of these various different hinge types with the Art 15 system,
for 90 minute integrity requirements is permissible.

Where a fire resistance integrity performance of 120 minutes, as per EN 16341-1, is

required only the screw on hinge type article number 557.182 & 557.183 (left and
right handed) and the weld on hinge type (article number 550.276) may be utilised

The hinges must SV WZeeVU Rd aVc eYV ^R_fWRTefcVcud Z_decfTeZ`_d.XfZUV]Z_Vd R_U in

the same fashion as reported in the relevant referenced test.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 62 of 157

Glazing Strips It is proposed that the glazing strip may be one of two different options. A
ceramic tape ';ceZT]V G`ud- 341.005 & 451.006) or a Ceramic tape with a wet
seal silicone (Article No. 451.005 + silicone).

;ceZT]V G`ud 451.005 & 451.006 were included as part of the tested construction
in report Noud. 23-32306703 & 23-32306703-2 in which a test result of in
excess of 120 minutes integrity was achieved.

Article No 451.005 + silicone was included as part of the tested construction in

report No. 322091303-1 in which a test result of 113 minutes integrity was
achieved.

This short fall, of 7 minutes, when compared to a 120 minute requirement is

considered inconsequential as the 451.005 ceramic tape has been proven in
isolation, for a period in excess of 120 minutes, without the silicone sealant.

As can be seen from the above listed results the various glazing strips and
seals have been included in many successful tests (in fact the above are just a
selection of the total catalogue of successful tests).

The above discussed glazing tapes (or tapes and sealant) may be used on
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge.

Increase in It is proposed that the dimensions of the tested constructions may be

Dimensions increased. Test report No. 321121202-1 was a double-leaf doorset which
incorporated leaves each with dimensions of 2508mm high by 951mm wide.

LYV u@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu Z_ eYV eVde deR_URcU ?G 0523-1:
2014 + A1: 2018 allows an increase in dimensions over and above those of the
eVdeVU daVTZ^V_ hYV_ eYV t=ReVX`cj <u `gVccf_ eZ^V YRd SVV_ ^Ve- @`c R U``cdVe
with a 120 minute integrity requirement, the standard requires an overrun of a
further 12 minutes q thus a total of 132 minutes test time is needed. The reference
test achieved 133 minutes integrity (without failure). The application of this rule,
therefore, is deemed appropriate.

The rule allows an increase of up to 15% in height or width, subject to a total

increase in area of no more than 20%. This results in the following allowable leaf
sizes for equal width double-leaf doorsets:

Max Height (mm) Max Width (mm) Max Area (m2)

2884 1093 2.85
(at 988mm wide) (at 2607mm high)
The same rule may be applied to the single leaf doorset tested in 23-32306703
which had leaf dimensions of 2510mm high by 950mm wide and also achieved
an integrity performance of 133 minutes. These are almost identical to the
2508mm high by 951mm wide leaf dimensions of the above referenced double
leaf doorset. It is considered appropriate, for the purposes of consistency, that
the above dimension increases may also be applied to single leaf constructions.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 63 of 157

Unequal Leaves It is proposed that double-leaf doorsets may incorporate leaves of unequal
width. Test report No. 321121202-1 incorporated two equal width leaves each
measuring 2508mm high by 951mm wide.

LYV t@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_u T`_eRZ_VU hZeYZ_ eYV eVde deR_URcU ?G 0523-1:
2014 + A1: 2018 allows for each leaf to be increased in width by up to 15% or
decreased in width by up to 50%. These increases and decreases may be
applied to each leaf individually (and simultaneously). The same increase in
height, by up to 15%, may be applied to the leaves also. Any increase in leaf
dimensions is subject to a maximum increase in leaf area of 20%. This results
in the following allowable maximum (and minimum) dimensions for each leaf in
an unequal width double-leaf doorset:

Maximum Leaf Maximum Leaf Minimum Leaf Maximum Leaf

Height Width width Area
(mm) (mm) (mm) (m2)
2884 1093 475 2.85

Fan Lights & Side Further to the previously discussed increases in dimensions to the door leaves,
Lights it is proposed that the fan lights and side lights may also be increased in
dimensions accordingly.

Test report No. 321121202-1 was a double-leaf doorset which incorporated a

side lights, on both sides of the doorset, each measuring 2530mm high by
979mm wide. The construction also incorporated a fan light measuring 459mm
high by 1901mm wide.

LYV u@ZV]U `W >ZcVTe ;aa]ZTReZ`_ `W LVde JVdf]edu Z_ eYV eVde deR_URcU ?G 0523-1:
2014 + A1: 2018 (Section 13.3.3.2.3) allows an increase in dimensions over
R_U RS`gV eY`dV `W eYV eVdeVU daVTZ^V_ hYV_ eYV t=ReVX`cj <u `gVccf_ eZ^V
has been met. For a doorset with a 120 minute integrity requirement, the
standard requires an overrun of a further 12 minutes q thus a total of 132
minutes test time is needed. The reference test achieved 133 minutes integrity
(without failure). The application of this rule, therefore, is deemed appropriate.

The rule allows an increase of up to 15% in height or width, subject to a total

increase in area of no more than 20%.

This results in the following allowable sizes for side lights:

Max Height (mm) Max Width (mm) Max Area (m2)

2909 1125 2.96
(at 1017mm wide) (at 2631mm high)
This results in the following allowable sizes for fan lights:

Max Height (mm) Max Width (mm) Max Area (m2)

527 2186 1.04
(at 1991mm wide) (at 476mm high)
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 64 of 157

The above discussed dimensions may be applied to the fan and side lights of
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge for the Art 15 construction with up to a 120 minute integrity requirement.
They also apply equally to doorsets containing one or two side lights.

Test report No. 23-32306703 was a single-leaf doorset which incorporated a

fan light over the doorset. The fan light comprised two panes of glass
(separated by a mullion), each pane measuring 1005mm high by 818mm wide.
This reference test also achieved 133 minutes integrity (without failure) and so
the application of the previously discussed rule, is also deemed appropriate in
this instance. As an alternative to the above discussed increase in dimensions,
for single leaf doorsets only, the below is deemed appropriate:

Max Height (mm) Max Width (mm) Max Area (m2)

1165 940 0.99
(at 856mm wide) (at 1053mm high)
The above dimensions are per pane of glass. A maximum of 2x panes of glass
may be used, positioned side-by-side, separated by a mullion of the same
design as tested in 23-32306703.

It is proposed that any of the alternative glasses listed in the tA]RkZ_X HaeZ`_du
section of this report (for use in the door leaves) may also be used in the side lights
and fan lights. The maximum dimensions allowable, for these alternative glasses,
shall be the same as those described above on the proviso that those other glasses
have allowable dimensions that are either the same or in excess of those above
(provided that the maximum allowable is within the range allowable for that glass
and is proven by test or assessment (by Warringtonfire).

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that side lights and fan lights
in the Art 15 system may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The glass
must be approved for use within uninsulated steel doorsets/screens for integrity
periods of up to 120 minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire
approval as per the requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be
taken to ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum dimensions
etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this assessment and the
Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire approval take precedence. It
should be noted that this does not confer Certifire approval upon the doorset.

The above discussed dimensions may be applied to the fan and side lights of
single or double-leaf doorsets incorporating the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge. They also apply equally to doorsets containing one or two side lights.

Drop Seals The construction tested in report No. 321121202-1 included the use of an
automatic drop seal (article No# 557.370) along the bottom edge of both
leaves. Both leaves had dimensions measuring 2508mm high by 951mm wide.
This test achieved a fire resistance integrity performance of 133 minutes.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 65 of 157

A similar construction was also tested to EN 1634-3 and reported in test report
No. 322091304-1. This construction only had one side light (whereas the above
test had a side light positioned on each side q this is considered
inconsequential as it is the leaf/frame and leaf/leaf interfaces that are assessed
in a smoke leakage test, and these were identical in the two reference tests).
The leaf dimensions in this smoke leakage test was 2200mm high by 1180mm
wide.

The following results were obtained using a closer with a force setting of 6:

The following results were obtained using a closer with a force setting of 4:

The maximum allowable, as per requirements of EN 13501-2, for a

construction of this type is 30m3/h. The smoke leakage at the threshold gap
was not counted towards the overall smoke leakage rate recorded during the
reference test to EN 1634-3, however, the combination of the above mentioned
test reports demonstrates that the inclusion of this automatic drop seal is not
of detriment to either the smoke leakage rate (at dimensions of 2200mm high
by 1180mm wide) or the fire resistance performance of the doorset for 120
minute integrity requirements.

The use of the drop seal (article No# 557.370), on single or double-leaf,
doorset with an un-rebated meeting / leading edge can, therefore, be
positively appraised for doorsets with up to a 120 minute integrity requirement.
This report does not, however, confer a formal classification upon this
construction.

Door Closers The construction tested in report No. 2017-Efectis-R000782 included the use of
a concealed U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; ITS 96u (Jansen reference:
555.296) fixed within the head profile of the leaf. The construction achieved in
excess of 120 minutes fire resistance integrity when opening away from the
heating conditions.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 66 of 157

The construction tested in report No. 321121202-1 included the use of a

T`_TVR]VU U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; BLK 85u 'CR_dV_ cVWVcV_TV9 444-128(
fixed within the head profile of the leaf. The construction achieved in excess of
120 minutes fire resistance integrity when opening towards the heating
conditions.

The construction tested in report No. 23-32306703-2 included the use of a

T`_TVR]VU U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; BLK 85u 'CR_dV_ cVWVcV_TV9 444-185(
fixed within the head profile of the leaf. The construction achieved in excess of
120 minutes fire resistance integrity when opening towards the heating
conditions.

The construction tested in report No. 23-32306703 included the use of a

T`_TVR]VU U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU t>HJF; BLK 85u 'CR_dV_ cVWVcV_TV9 444-185(
fixed within the head profile of the leaf. The construction achieved in excess of
120 minutes fire resistance integrity when opening away from the heating
conditions.

;d TR_ SV dVV_ Wc`^ eYV RS`gV+ eYV t>HJF; BLK 85u T]`dVc YRd SVV_
successfully tested in both single and double leaf doorsets (including those with
an un-rebated meeting/leading edge) when opening both towards and away
from the heating conditions. Its inclusion within the Art 15 system can,
therefore, be positively appraised for single leaf and double leaf constructions
in either opening direction for up to 120 minutes integrity performance.

The construction tested in report No. 322091303-1 included the use of a

dfcWRTV ^`f_eVU U``c T]`dVc cVWVcV_TVU tGEZE TS 5000u WZiVU to the frame
header on the exposed face. The construction achieved 113 minutes fire
resistance integrity when opening away from the heating conditions. The use
of this surface mounted closer is, therefore, restricted to that of the tested
construction; on the exposed face when opening away from the heating
conditions and is limited to 90 minute requirements. When the direction of
exposure is unknown, this closer shall not be used.

Lock Options The construction tested in report No. 322091303 included the use of the
tEspagnolette locku 'RceZT]V G`- 555.908). The test achieved 113 minutes
integrity. It is not thought that the failure is attributable to the presence of the
lock q indeed the 10mm diameter lock rods are housed entirely within the
meeting edge profiles and were not engaged during the test. Despite the 7
minute shortfall in test duration (when compared to a 120 minute requirement)
is considered acceptable that, given the fully internally housed nature of the
lock and the fact it was not engaged during the test, it can be included in
constructions which have up to a 120 minute requirement. Furthermore, given
that the lock was not engaged during the test, its use is, therefore, optional.
The above applies equally to double-leaf doorsets and single leaf doorsets.

Supporting It is proposed that the Art 15 doorset may be fitted within one of several types
Construction of supporting construction; concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel stud
partition, plasterboard clad timber stud partition or an Art 15 glazed screen. As
^V_eZ`_VU Z_ eYV t;ddf^aeZ`_du dVTeZ`_ `W eYZd cVa`ce q it is assumed that any
supporting construction, into which the doorset is being fitted, has been
subject to separate test and has achieved the appropriate fire resistance rating.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 67 of 157

A concrete/blockwork supporting construction was used, and reported, in the

following test report numbers: 2019-Efectis-R002338, 2017-Efectis-R002362,
2021-Efectis-R000067, 2017-Efectis-R000782 & 321121202-1
A plasterboard clad steel stud partition supporting construction (as per clause
7.2.2.4 in EN 1363-1) was used, and reported, in test report number
322091303. No test evidence has been supplied showing the Art 15 doorset
mounted in a plasterboard clad timber stud partition supporting construction.
An Art 15 glazed screen supporting construction was used, and reported, in test
report number 2015-Efectis-R000008.
The constructions contained within the above referenced test reports were of
various dimensions, containing various glasses and in various formats (single-
leaf/double-leaf, opening towards/opening away, with side-light/without side-light,
with fan-light/without fan-light etc). The cumulative effect of this large body of test
evidence is to demonstrate that the Art 15 system (in a wide variety of formats)
can achieve up to a 120 minute integrity performance, as per the requirements of
EN1634-1, when mounted within a concrete/blockwork supporting construction.

The above referenced test report in which the Art 15 doorset was tested in a
plasterboard clad steel stud partition supporting construction (as per clause 7.2.2.4
in EN 1363-1) provides a good deal of confidence of the doorset in this type of
construction. Further to this though; the Field of Direct Application rule 13.5.4. e)
within EN 1634-0 deReVd eYRe rp-W`c f_Z_df]ReVU ^VeR] U``cd+ eYV cVdf]e `W R eVde Z_
a rigid supporting construction is applicable to that door assembly mounted in a
flexible constrfTeZ`_p--s- LYZd Zd UfV e` eYV cVRd`_Z_X eYRe R W]ViZS]V dfaa`ceZ_X
construction will deflect/bend in sympathy with the doorset, mounted within it
during test, thus reducing the risk of gap formation (and subsequent failure)
around the perimeter of the doorset construction. When mounted within a rigid
supporting construction (concrete/blockwork), as was the case in many of the
above mentioned test reports, the door frame is held rigidly in place by the anchors
(provided appropriate anchors in appropriate quantity are used). This is considered
more onerous as the expected deflection of the door leaf will therefore be
exacerbated by the lack of sympathetic movement in the door frame/supporting
construction. This is not the case in the flexible supporting constructions
(plasterboard clad timber stud partitions or plasterboard clad steel stud partitions)
where the supporting construction is expected to deflect/bend in sympathy with the
doorset. The use of the Art 15 doorset in either concrete/blockwork supporting
construction, a plasterboard clad steel stud partition supporting construction or a
plasterboard clad timber stud partition supporting construction can, therefore, be
positively appraised. The fire resistance performance of a supporting construction
shall have been established separately in a previous test.

Test report No. 2015-Efectis-R000008 is a test of an Art 15 glazed doorset with a

fan light fitted within a glazed screen partition of the Art 15 series (the two vertical
edges were left free i.e. not fixed back to the test frame). This allows for the infinite
addition to the glazed screen (on each side of the doorset). It is not considered that
this represents an increased risk to the proposed un-rebated meeting / leading
edge of the doorset because this screen is more likely to deflect in sympathy with
the doorset than if it were fixed back to a rigid supporting construction.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 68 of 157

It can be concluded, therefore, that were the Art 15 doorset fitted within a
concrete/blockwork, plasterboard clad steel stud partition, a plasterboard clad
timber stud partition or an Art 15 glazed screen, a result of up to 120 minutes
integrity (dependent upon construction) would be expected were it tested in
accordance with EN1634-1.

Mullions & It is proposed that mullions/transoms may be incorporated into the Art 15
Transoms system. Test report number 2017-Efectis-R002362 (doorset A) was a test
carried out to EN 1634-1 on a single leaf doorset which opened away from the
furnace. The tested specimen included a transom at a height of 878mm and
then a second one 250mm above that. The glazing beads were on the exposed
face. The tested construction achieved 83 minutes integrity. This failure was
due to gap formation in the glass of the construction and was not, in anyway,
associated with the mullions or transoms of the doorset.

The Art 15 doorset system has proved itself capable of achieving up to 120
minutes integrity (dependent upon construction) as described in several test
reports cited throughout the Art 15 section of this report, without the
incorporation of either transoms or mullions.

Test experience demonstrates that the inclusion of a mullion or transom does

not have a negative impact upon the test result achieved.

In fact, it is considered that the inclusion of a mullion / transom will serve to

strengthen the door itself, increase the rigidity (and therefore reduce
susceptibility to deformation and gap formation) and also provide increased
support to the glass. This will only be of benefit to the construction as a whole.
The use of mullions / transoms can, therefore, be positively appraised when
included in a construction with the un-rebated meeting / leading edge for up to
120 minutes integrity.

Steel Flats for Test report No. 321121202-1 included the use of a 70mm deep by 8mm wide
Reinforced steel flat between the door frame members and the side panel frame
Element Coupling members. The frame members were fixed to this steel flat using M5 x 25mm
steel screws at 300mm (off-set) centres. This is shown in the below cross
section (steel flat highlighted in yellow):
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 69 of 157

The tested construction, a double leaf doorset with side lights and fan lights (a
fairly onerous construction), achieved 133 minutes integrity performance. It is
expected that the inclusion of these steel flats imbued a degree of rigidity and
stability on the construction and were of benefit to the overall performance of
the construction. LYV deVV] W]Red U` W`c^ R reYVc^R] ScZUXVs Wc`^ eYV Via`dVU
to unexposed face of the construction, however, due to the fact that this Art 15
system is not an insulation rated construction, this is considered to be of no
consequence. Due to the all steel nature and the obvious benefits of their
inclusion, the use of these steel flats on all Art 15 construction variants (single
leaf, double leaf, one side light, two side lights etc) can be positively approved
for up to 120 minutes performance. Their use is limited to between vertical
elements only (i.e. they may not be used between horizontal frame elements).

Glazing Options The Art 15 system has been tested when incorporating several different
glasses. These are shown below:

Test Glass Type Integrity and Tested Dimensions (total

Report No. Radiation Test Result element)

321121202- 3035mm high x 3960mm wide

Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm) 133 / 130 minutes
1 (12.02m2)
2017-
2311 mm high x 2245 mm wide
Efectis- Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm) 132 / 132 minutes
(5.19m2)
R000782
322091303- 3050 mm high x 3020 mm wide
Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm) 113 / 113 minutes
1 (9.21m2)
2019-
2668 mm high x 2260 mm wide
Efectis- Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm) 115 / 115 minutes
(6.03m2)
R002338
2015-
90 / 90 minutes (no 3455 mm high x 3934 mm wide
Efectis- Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm)
failure) (13.60m2)
R000008
2017-
Efectis- 2593 mm high x 1200 mm wide
Pyrobel 17N (16 mm) 83 / 74 minutes
R002362 (3.11m2)
(door A)
2017-
Efectis- 52 / 52 minutes (no 2593 mm high x 1200 mm wide
Pyrobel 17N (16 mm)
R002362 radiation failure) (3.11m2)
(door B)
2021-
Efectis- 90 / 90 minutes (no 2593 mm high x 1200 mm wide
Pyrobel T EW60 (16 mm)
R000067 failure) (3.11m2)
(door A)
2021-
Efectis- 2593 mm high x 1200 mm wide
Pyrobel T EW60 (16 mm) 71 / 71 minutes
R000067 (3.11m2)
(door B)
23- Pyroguard T q EW/13-1 3020 mm high x 1815 mm wide
133 / 78 minutes
32306704 (13 mm) (5.48m2)
23- Pyroguard T q EW/13-1 3020 mm high x 1815 mm wide
133 / 92 minutes
32306704-2 (13 mm) (5.48m2)
23- Pyroguard T q EW/13-1 3548 mm high x 1660 mm wide
133 / 85 minutes
32306703-2 (13 mm) (5.89m2)
23- Pyroguard T q EW/13-1 3548 mm high x 1660 mm wide
133 / 103 minutes
32306703 (13 mm) (5.89m2)
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 70 of 157

As can be seen from the information in the above table; various results were
obtained when the Art 15 system incorporated Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm
thick) glass. It shall be noted that where eVde cVa`ce G`ud 212091303-1 & 2019-
Efectis-R002338 both achieved a result below 120 minutes integrity, the
opening direction was away from the heating conditions. These were a double
leaf doorset with side light & fan light, and a double leaf doorset, respectively.
Test report No. 2017-Efectis-R000782 achieved 132 minutes integrity also
when opening away from the heating conditions, this was a single leaf doorset
with side and fan light. Finally test report No. 321121202-1 achieved 133
minutes integrity when opening towards the heating conditions, this was a
double leaf construction with side lights (on both sides) and a fan light. We
may consider this to be a very onerous construction yet it achieved one of the
best performances. This is demonstrative of an inconsistent performance of the
construction when glazed using Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm). It is considered
prudent, therefore, to restrict the use of the Contraflam lite 60 (14 mm thick)
glass in the Art 15 system to 90 minutes integrity performance. This is a level
to which the constructions consistently performed.

As can be seen from the information in the above table; various results were
obtained when the Art 15 system incorporated Pyrobel 17N (16 mm thick)
glass. It shall be noted that where test report No. 2017-Efectis-R002362 (door
B) achieved a result below 60 minutes integrity, the failure is attributed to gap
formation between the doorframe and the supporting construction. This is not
indicative of a failure of the glass and so this result shall be disregarded insofar
as it pertains to the glass in question. The other result, in which the
construction incorporated the Pyrobel 17N (16 mm thick) glass was
comfortably over the 60 minute integrity requirement. The use, therefore, of
the Pyrobel 17N (16 mm thick) glass in the Art 15 system can be positively
appraised for periods up to 60 minutes integrity.

As can be seen from the information in the above table; various results were
obtained when the Art 15 system incorporated Pyrobel T EW60 (16 mm thick)
glass. The results were all comfortably over the 60 minute integrity
requirement. The use, therefore, of the Pyrobel T EW60 (16 mm thick) glass in
the Art 15 system can be positively appraised for periods up to 60 minutes
integrity.

As can be seen from the information in the above table; various results were
obtained when the Art 15 system incorporated Pyroguard T q EW/13-1 (13 mm
thick) glass. The results were all comfortably over the 120 minute integrity
requirement. The use, therefore, of the Pyroguard T q EW/13-1 (13 mm thick)
glass in the Art 15 system can be positively appraised for periods up to 120
minutes integrity.

Where a thicker variant exists for a glass from the same family, for those
glasses listed above, its use within the Art 15 system is permissible. For
example; the Pyroguard T q EW/13-1 (13 mm thick) glass, already approved
above, may be exchanged for the Pyroguard T q EW/15-1 (15 mm thick) glass.
This exchange does not confer an increased fire resistance performance, nor
can it be used to confer an increase in allowable dimensions greater than those
]ZdeVU Z_ eYV tB_TcVRdV Z_ >Z^V_dZ`_du dVTeZ`_-
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 71 of 157

The maximum dimension increases described previously in this report (in the
tB_TcVRdV Z_ >Z^V_dZ`_du dVTeZ`_( ^Rj SV Raa]ZVU e` U``cdVed T`_eRZ_Z_X eYV f_-
rebated meeting edge, and any of the glasses listed above, provided that the
maximum allowable is within the range allowable for that glass and is proven
by test or assessment (by Warringtonfire).

It is also considered permissible, where appropriate, that the Art 15 system

may be glazed using a Certifire approved glass. The glass must be approved
for use within uninsulated steel doorsets for integrity periods of up to 120
minutes as per the requirements of EN 1634-1 (a Certifire approval as per the
requirements of BS 476: Part 22 is not sufficient). Care must be taken to
ensure that all requirements detailed within the Certifire certificate are met
(including, but not limited to, edge cover, glazing system, maximum
dimensions etc). Where conflict occurs between the requirements of this
assessment and the Certifire approval, the requirements of the Certifire
approval take precedence.
Given the above discussion it is considered permissible that the above listed
glasses may be used in a doorset containing the un-rebated meeting / leading
edge.

The radiation performance of a construction comprising the Art 15 system is

intrinsically linked to the glass used, the dimensions of the construction and the
constructional specifics of the tested element (opening direction for example).
The information in the above table is demonstrative of inconsistent
performance for radiation (even where the same glass has been used, in
similar constructions). It is considered prudent, therefore, to restrict claims of
radiation performance to that of the tested constructions, or clearly less
onerous variants thereof (for example reduced dimensions). The manufacturer
shall be consulted in this regard.

The Use of Infill Test report No. 4052508 was a test carried out to EN 1634-1 on an Economy
Panels 50 single-leaf doorset with side and fan lights. The Economy 50 system is an all
steel, uninsulated framing system very similar in design to the Art 15 system q
the main difference being the relative dimensions of each system. The basic
Economy 50 construction comprises 50mm wide by 50mm deep steel profiles
(not accounting for flanges etc). This is shown below:
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 72 of 157

The basic Art 15 system is also 50mm deep (exposed to unexposed face) but
much narrower. This is shown below:

It is considered that this difference in dimensions would not significantly

influence the fire resistance integrity performance. The deformation behaviour
we see in steel systems of this type is a bowing towards the furnace at mid-
height of the construction. This is, therefore, a factor closely related to the
depth of the framing system (exposed to unexposed face) q which is 50mm in
both systems. The narrower profile of the Art 15 system has been proven in
many tests. The use of this test report rt on the Economy 50 system, No.
4052508, in support of the use of infill panels can be positively appraised q the
infill panels are further discussed below.

In test report No. 4052508 (of the Economy 50 system) an infill panel, rather
than glass, was used in the side light (to the hinge side of the door). The infill
panel was nominally 21 mm thick and composed 1x layer of 18mm thick
plasterboard and a 1.5 mm thick steel sheet on each face. The panel had
dimensions of 1340 mm wide by 1883 mm high. The construction achieved a
fire resistance integrity performance of 92 minutes.

This demonstrates that the use of an infill panel of this construction is capable
of contributing to a successful test, as per the requirements of EN 1634-1,
when fitted within the Economy 50 system, albeit as a side light rather than in
the door leaf itself.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 73 of 157

It is prudent to mention, also, that the thermocouples positioned on the

f_Via`dVU WRTV `W eYV aR_V] 'G`ud- 08 & 1/( UZU _`e cVT`cU R_j eV^aVcRefcVd
above 75'C for the first 30 minutes of the test and were measuring only 331'C
and 362'C respectively at the end of the test (92 minutes). These figures
correspond to the lower end of the range recorded by the thermocouples fitted
to the glazed areas of the test construction. The Art 15 system is not rated as
providing insulation and so these thermocouple readings are inconsequential,
although they do serve to provide further confidence in the panels ability to
contribute to an integrity performance of 60 minutes, if tested to EN1634-1.
The photographs included in the above mentioned report also show the panel
still in place and intact at the end of the test, which was in excess of 30
minutes above the 60 minute requirement. For these reasons it is considered
permissible that an infill panel of this construction may also be used in the door
leaf(s) of an Art 15 doorset with a fire resistance integrity requirement of up to
60 minutes. Where a doorset is also required to have a radiation performance,
the use of infill panels is prohibited (please refer to the comment in regards
cRUZReZ`_ hZeYZ_ eYV tA]RkZ_X HaeZ`_du dVTeZ`_ `W eYZd cVa`ce(-

The use of this panel in the Art 15 system as a door leaf infill or as a side light
infill is, therefore, considered permissible. The infill panel must be constructed
as described in the above mentioned test report. The test report also provides
details of the associated system (beading, sealing materials etc) which must
also be used. Considering the demonstrated stability of this infill panel, its use
in an Art 15 construction utilising the un-rebated meeting / leading edge, is
considered permissible.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 74 of 157

Conclusions
It can be concluded that the various constructions, as discussed in this
assessment, should be expected to be capable of achieving the fire resistance
performance as defined within the relevant section (dependant on
specification), if tested in accordance with EN 1634-1.

This assessment represents our opinion as to the performance likely

to be demonstrated on a test in accordance with EN1634-1, on the
basis of the evidence referred to above. We express no opinion as to
whether that evidence, and/or this assessment, would be regarded
by any Building Control authorities or any other third parties as
sufficient for that or any other purpose. This assessment is provided
to the client for its own purposes and we cannot opine on whether it
will be accepted by Building Control authorities or any other third
parties for any purpose.

Validity
This assessment is issued on the basis of test data and information available at
the time of issue. If contradictory evidence becomes available to Warringtonfire
the assessment will be unconditionally withdrawn and Jansen AG will be
notified in writing. Similarly the assessment is invalidated if the assessed
construction is subsequently tested because actual test data is deemed to take
precedence over an expressed opinion. The assessment is valid for a period of
five years, after which time it is recommended that it be returned for re-
appraisal.

The appraisal is only valid provided that no other modifications are made to the
tested construction other than those described in this report.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 75 of 157

Summary of Supporting Data

A large volume of test data has been submitted in support of this assessment.
The specimens tested variously include the different components and / or
constructional elements, for each of the three different systems discussed
herein. The reports are referenced where necessary and briefly summarised
below.

Test reports submitted in support of the Janisol 2 system:

13-002710-PR01 Test date : 26 September 2013

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

13-002710-PR02 Test date : 26 September 2013

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

10-V-25 Test date : 19 February 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

840 668-9 Test date : 24 March 2003

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

3850/1564 Test date : 15 September 2004

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

271 32521 Test date : 15 November 2006

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

3635/9504 Test date : 16 June 2004

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

LP-00811/201 Test date : 08 February 2010

Test sponsor : Dw_ZX KeRY] (permission provided)

10-V-074 Test date : 17 February 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

15-0004780PR01 Test date : 22 May 2015

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

10-V-182 Test date : 28 April 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

P304027 Test date : 22 January 2004

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 76 of 157

10-V-075 Test date : 19 February 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

DTM-DO-50-209 Test date : 12 December 2014

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

RFTR15087 Test date : 04 June 2015

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

319031809 Test date : 18 April 2019

Test sponsor : Schüco International KG

13-V-209 Test date : 15 March 2013

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

271 37038 Test date : 18 November 2008

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

271 38190 Test date : 10 March 2009

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

271 38192 Test date : 16 April 2009

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

271 38193 Test date : 16 April 2009

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

10-001056 Test date : 26 October 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

12-001472 Test date : 04 & 05 July 2012

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

3328-1041 Test date : 28 May 2001

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

3832-5200 Test date : 25 Jan 2001

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

28143773-1 Test date : 21 June 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

DMT-DO-52-125 Test date : 06 & 07 May 2015

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 77 of 157

318091705-2 Test date : 30 & 31 October 2018

Test sponsor : Schüco International KG

09-V-296 Test date : 25 June 2009

Test sponsor : A]Rd LcwdTY ;A 'aVc^ZddZ`_ ac`gZUVU(

10-V-026 Test date : 22 January 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

271 38194 Test date : 17 April 2009

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

10-V-183 Test date : 30 April 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

12-003306 Test date : 14 January 2013

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

15-001190 Test date : 02 June 2015

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

271 30539 Test date : 10 November 2005

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

321062001-1 Test date : 16 July 2021

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

321062001-2 Test date : 16 July 2021

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

Test reports submitted in support of the Janisol C4 system:

LP-1328.1/08 Test date : 26 January 2009

Test sponsor : Morad Spolka z.o.o. (permission provided)

LP-02200/09 Test date : 12 May 2009

Test sponsor : PP Trisem Sp z.o.o. (permission provided)

08-V-364 Test date : 10 October 2008

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

09-V-437 Test date : 07 October 2009

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

09-V-438 Test date : 09 October 2009

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 78 of 157

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

10-V-146 Test date : 09 April 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

10-V-151 Test date : 13 April 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

10-V-152 Test date : 14 April 2010

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

289689 Test date : 28 October to 04 November 2011

Test sponsor : BT Fire S.R.L (permission provided)

14022630 Test date : 05 September 2014

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

09-V-163 Test date : 27 March 2008

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

17-002866 PR01 Test date : 01 December 2017

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

403121 Test date : 11t December 2018

Test sponsor : Schüco International KG

3009-433-07 Test date : 05 February 2007

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

3158-773-07 Test date : 08 February 2007

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

318091705-1 Test date : 30 & 31 October 2018

Test sponsor : Schüco International KG

18-000183 Test date : 15 February 2018

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

Test reports submitted in support of the Economy 60 system:

05-V-009 Test date : 11 January 2005

Test sponsor : Jansen

10-E-557 Test date : 29 October 2010

Test sponsor : Essex Safety Glass (permission provided)

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 79 of 157

11-V-001 Test date : 07 January 2011

Test sponsor : Essex Safety Glass (permission provided)

271 34047 Test date : 11 July 2007

Test sponsor : A]Rd LcwdTY ;A (permission provided)

271 34770 Test date : 29 January 2008

Test sponsor : A]Rd LcwdTY ;A 'permission provided)

4052508 Test date : 22 June 2004

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

450 898-10 Test date : 11 December 2008

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

08052610-1 Test date : 19 June 2008

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

3303/5472 Test date : 13 February 2003

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

418 360-2 Test date : 22 May 2001

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

13-001283-PR02 Test date : 03 September 2013

Test sponsor : Jansen

411 104 Test date : 24 November 2000

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

2003-CVB-R0326 Test date : 17 April 2003

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

3908-1912 Test date : 13 February 2005

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

13492 Test date : 05 September 2000

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

04120208 Test date : 13 December 2004

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

DMT-DO-50-561 Test date : 23 November 2018

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 80 of 157

12-000452 Test date : 13 March 2012

Test sponsor : Glas Trosch AG (Permission provided)

Test reports submitted in support of the Art 15 system:

2015-Efectis- Test date : 04 December 2014

R000008
Test sponsor : Jansen AG

2019-Efectis- Test date : 11 November 2019

R002338
Test sponsor : Jansen AG

2017-Efectis- Test date : 07 December 2017

R002362
Test sponsor : Jansen AG

2021-Efectis- Test date : 15 September 2020

R000067
Test sponsor : Jansen AG

2017-Efectis- Test date : 11 April 2017

R000782
Test sponsor : Jansen AG

321121202-1 Test date : 26 January 2022

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

322091303-1 Test date : 15 November 2022

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

322091304-1 Test date : 27 October 2022

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

23-32306704 Test date : 14 September 2023

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

23-32306704-2 Test date : 14 September 2023

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

23-32306703-2 Test date : 13 September 2023

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

23-32306703 Test date : 13 September 2023

Test sponsor : Jansen AG

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 81 of 157

Declaration by Jansen AG.

We the undersigned confirm that we have read and comply with obligations
placed on us by the Passive Fire Protection Forum (PFPF) Guide to undertaking
technical assessments and engineering evaluations based on fire test evidence
2021 Industry Standard Procedure

We confirm that any changes to a component or element of structure which

are the subject of this assessment have not to our knowledge been tested to
the standard against which this assessment has been made.

We agree to withdraw this assessment from circulation should the component

or element of structure, or any of its component parts be the subject of a failed
fire resistance test to the standard against which this assessment is being
made.

We understand that this assessment is based on test evidence and will be

withdrawn should evidence become available that causes the conclusion to be
questioned. In that case, we accept that new test evidence may be required.

We are not aware of any information that could affect the conclusions of this
assessment. If we subsequently become aware of any such information, we
agree to ask the assessing authority to withdraw the assessment.

(in accordance with the principles of FTSG Resolution No. 82: 2001)
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 82 of 157

Signatories

Responsible Officer

T. Benyon* - Senior Product Assessor

Approved

A Kearns* - Technical Manager

* For and on behalf of Warringtonfire.

Report Issued: 04 December 2019

The assessment report is not valid unless it incorporates the declaration duly signed by the applicant.

This copy has been produced from a .pdf format electronic file that has been provided by Warringtonfire to the sponsor
of the report and must only be reproduced in full. Extracts or abridgements of reports must not be published without
permission of Warringtonfire. The pdf copy supplied is the sole authentic version of this document. All pdf versions of
this report bear authentic signatures of the responsible Warringtonfire staff.

All work and services carried out by Warringtonfire Testing and Certification Limited are subject to, and conducted in
accordance with, the Standard Terms and Conditions of Warringtonfire Testing and Certification Limited, which are
available at https://www.element.com/terms/terms-and-conditions or upon request.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 83 of 157

Revision History
Issue No: 1 Issue Date: 04 December 2019
Authored By: T. Benyon Approved By: A. Kearns
Original issue of document

Issue No: 2 Re-issue Date: 17 September 2020

Revised By: T. Benyon Approved By: A. Kearns
Reason for Revision: Modification to leaf dimension increase details.

Issue No: 3 Re-issue Date: 14 December 2021

Revised By: T. Benyon Approved By: A. Kearns
Reason for Revision: B_T`ca`cReZ`_ `W rBLK85s integrated door closer and various minor amendments.

Issue No: 4 Re-issue Date: 15 October 2024

Revised By: T. Benyon Approved By: A. Kearns
Reason for Revision: B_T`ca`cReZ`_ `W rArt 15s system and revalidation for a further 5 years.
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 84 of 157

Appendix A – Janisol 2 Drawings

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 85 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 86 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 87 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 88 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 89 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 90 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 91 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 92 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 93 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 94 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 95 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 96 of 157
 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 97 of 157

Appendix B – Janisol C4 Drawings

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 98 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 99 of 157
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 100 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 101 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 102 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 103 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 104 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 105 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 106 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 107 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 108 of 157

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 109 of 157

Appendix C – Economy 60 Drawings

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 110 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 111 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 112 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 113 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 114 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 115 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 116 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 117 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 118 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 119 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 120 of 157

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 121 of 157

Appendix D – Art 15 Drawings

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 122 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 123 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 124 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 125 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 126 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 127 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 128 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 129 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 130 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 131 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 132 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 133 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 134 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 135 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 136 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 137 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 138 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 139 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 140 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 141 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 142 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 143 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 144 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 145 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 146 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 147 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 148 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 149 of 157

 WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 150 of 157

Appendix E - Summary
WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 151 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 152 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 153 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 154 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 155 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 156 of 157

WF Assessment Report
No. 407072 q Issue 4

Page 157 of 157