Pyropanel Developments are specialists in fire rated glazing solutions, and our rated glazing systems are designed for easy installation into new projects, refurbished buildings and existing walls. Our various window and door configurations will provide insulated fire resistance levels of -/60/30, -/60/60, and -/120/120, and non insulated levels of -/60/-, -/120/- and -/240/-, which will meet any requirement of the Building Code of Australia. Our range includes steel and timber framed fixed windows, timber faced glass fire doors, steel faced glass fire doors, single and double acting doors, and glass sliding fire doors. All Pyropanel fire windows are supplied as a certified system consisting of glass and frame, and are classified according to their Fire Resistance Level as required by Australian Standards and the Building code of Australia. Fire Resistance Levels, or FRL’s for short, are a series of numbers that describe the ability of a certified product to resist the spread of fire.
For example, a typical fire rated wall may have a fire resistance level of 120/120/120, and a typical insulated fire window may have an FRL of -/120/120. But what do these three numbers actually mean? Structural adequancyThe first number simply refers to how long the product can withstand the spread of fire and still support what it is designed to support. Doors and windows are not structural items, and therefore are not tested for this aspect of fire resistance, and will generally be represented with a “-“ in the first position. The BCA states that "If a non-load bearing element is able to be used for a purpose where the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions prescribe an FRL for structural adequancy, integrity and insulation, that non-loadbearing element need not comply with the structural adequacy criteria" (BCA Spec A2.3,6). I.E., items that are non structural such as doors and windows, can be used in walls that require structural adequacy. IntegrityThe second number refers to the ability to prevent the spread of flames.
There are particular requirements under the Australian Standards as to the pass and fail criteria. InsulationThe final number refers to the length of time that the product can prevent the spread of fire due to heat transfer. Special requirements include the ability to prevent a localised temperature increase of more than 180 degrees C, or an average temperature increase of 140 degrees C for the duration of the test. Bushfire Note: Pyropanel Fire Rated windows are all certified to AS1530.4, and are used extensively in commercial and residential applications. Windows certified to AS1530.4 may also be suitable for Bushfire Flame Zone (BAL-FZ) classifications according to AS3959, and for applications requiring certification to AS1530.8.2. Please check with your local certifying authority for exact requirements.For office buildings the BCA has specifications for various internal walls and shafts, for external walls close to property boundaries, and for floors and roofs. Gyprock provides tested system recommendations that meet the functional needs and fire compliance requirements for office developments.
These are outlined in the Gyprock Offices Design Guide with a much wider selection available through the online System Selector and The Gyprock Red Book. These plasterboards are recommended by Gyprock in wall and ceiling systems to meet functional needs and fire compliance requirements for office facilities including: For office buildings of four or more storeys (Class 5, Type A construction), the BCA Deemed to Satisfy Provisions have specifications for various internal walls and shafts, for external walls close to property boundaries, and for floors and roofs. It is assumed that floor and column fire rating is provided by concrete elements. The table below outlines the requirements for walls and roofs. Roofs are not required to have a rating if the covering is non-combustible and the building is less than three storeys or has a complying sprinkler system throughout. If the building is less than 25m high a fire rated ceiling may be used. Additional requirements apply including: elements supporting fire rated construction, columns, atriums, sprinkler systems, tops of shafts, car parks, fire control services, doors and fire isolated exits.
The BCA limits the materials used in Class 5 buildings by controlling the Fire Hazard properties of linings. BCA FRL Requirements for Office FacilitiesLAKE PLACID – The 10 schools that make up Franklin-Essex-Hamilton BOCES are considering joining together to finance a proposed $18.5 million capital project with a vote likely in September. Watertown-based BCA Architects & Engineers has developed a plan for the project and is currently touring each of the 10 districts presenting their plan at school board meetings, including a stop at the Lake Placid Central School District meeting on Jan. 17. BCA is proposing $6.88 million in improvements for the North Franklin Educational Center in Malone and $4.93 million in improvements at Adirondack Educational Center in Saranac Lake. BCA is also budgeting $2.62 million in incidental costs, $2.16 million in a 15 percent contingency buffer and $1.92 million in a 3 percent annual escalation of construction costs. Speaking at the Lake Placid board meeting last week, BOCES District Superintendent Steve Shafer said voters in each of the 10 districts — Lake Placid, Saranac Lake, Tupper Lake, Brushton-Moira, Chateaugay, Malone, Raquette Lake, Long Lake, Salmon River and St. Regis Falls — would combine for approval or disproval of the plan.
Of the $18.5 million total estimated cost, BCA is estimating Lake Placid’s share would be $1.51 million, Saranac Lake’s $2.64 million and Tupper Lake’s $1.71 million — each of those numbers not including estimated BOCES Resident Weighted Average Daily Attendance (RWADA) aid. Neither Lake Placid or Saranac Lake is projected to received RWADA aid, while BCA estimates Tupper Lake would receive $752,209 over two years, dropping their share of the district-wide project to $959,566. At the Jan. 17 meeting, Shafer said the districts have two options for financing their shares of the project: either to together enter into a inter-municipal agreement for the project, or to be billed annually as individual districts for shares of the projects costs. Shafer said the advantage of the inter-municipal agreement is that it would allow districts three different options to pay their share: an all-cash option split into two payments, bond anticipation notes that could be used for two years, and multi-year financing.
Shafer said districts could individually finance by combining the three options after Lake Placid Business Manager Leonard Sauers asked if the district could combine paying a portion in cash and multi-year financing. The estimated percentage on the 2015-16 tax levy for Lake Placid is 1.04 percent, 1.17 percent for Saranac Lake and 1.02 percent for Tupper Lake. The estimated annual average cost to taxpayers on a $150,000 home in Lake Placid is $9.31, $16.76 in Saranac Lake and $20.47 in Tupper Lake. BCA proposes the project be completed in two phases in 2018 and 2019. Adirondack Educational Center in Saranac Lake Proposed space planning issues at AEC include consolidating alternative education classrooms, creating a traditional style classroom for culinary arts (a program that currently doesn’t have a classroom space), creating a cafe and deli space within the existing kitchen for expanded culinary arts program offerings, carving out a new classroom space for the building trades program out of the existing shop space
, renovating the auto tech shop to expand into electric and hybrid car repair, building a greenhouse gas addition for expanded offerings in the natural resource program, providing a handicap bathroom in the health occupation classroom and renovating the main office and counselors suite to allow better and more private one-on-one counseling with students. Proposed health safety and security improvements at AEC include replacing non-rated corridor doors, providing additional fire and smoke alarm devices to comply with current standards, renovating bathrooms for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and creating a more enclosed, secure entrance. Proposed additional scope items at AEC include replacing an underground fuel oil tank, reconstructing existing pavement, replacing a sidewalk, masonry rehab, partially replacing an exterior door and window, replacing the public address system, CUV replacements, providing public water access and upgrading Wi-Fi throughout the building.
North Franklin Educational Center in Malone Proposed space planning issues at North Franklin Educational Center include renovating the auto tech shop to expand the program into electric and hybrid car repair and providing additional space for a wash bay and engine repair, relocating cosmetology to a larger space to allow for expanded curriculum such as spa care, relocating early childhood education to a larger space, renovating the main office and counselors suite, providing a greenhouse for the science department, consolidating the alternative education classrooms, building new space for the resource room for students with IEPs, renovating and expanding the district office, relocating the electrical trades program to a larger space, creating a classroom for the culinary arts program and creating a classroom for the building trade and heavy equipment program by carving out existing shop space. Proposed health safety and security improvements at North Franklin Educational Center include additional fire and smoke devices to meet current standards, replacing corridor doors with required fire rated doors, creating an enclosed, secure entrance, providing ramps at several entrances and renovating several bathrooms to increase handicap accesibility.
Additional scope items include additional parking and road access, reconstruction of existing pavement, masonry rehab, partial exterior door replacement, interior fire door replacement, interior lighting replacement, clock and PA system replacements and upgrading Wi-Fi throughout the building. Proposed energy efficiency improvements to both Adirondack Educational Center and North Franklin Educational Center include replacing the buildings’ remaining pneumatic controls with digital controls, replacing original air handling units and the associated ductwork. At AEC, BCA is also proposing replacing overhead doors with new energy efficient doors. There is one outstanding variable in the proposed project, as the cost to run a water line from the village of Saranac Lake’s water supply to AEC is undetermined. It’s an outlying question Lake Placid board member Pat Stanton described as “kind of major.” Shafer said BCA has factored in what it expects to be the maximum cost of the water line work into the contingency cost for the project.
“The best case scenario is we’d go right out of AEC with a water line, go right into a right-of-way along state Route 3 several hundred feet to get back to the village water supply there,” he said. “It doesn’t absolutely have to be decided before the vote,” he added, “as long as we make sure we are going to stay within our cost estimates either way. In a perfect world, I’d love to have it all nailed down by June, but there is quite a bit to it.” “Early indications are that we are probably going to be able to use this right-of-way,” he continued. “But if we cannot, we’d have to then look into getting easements across other parcels of property and purchasing property.” Lake Placid school board member Jeffrey Brownell then asked in the event of a massive cost overrun after voter approval, would voters be stuck with footing a bigger bill? Shafer replied that the project couldn’t cost more than what voters approved. He added that BCA initially proposed a $25 million project to districts, including solar panels, but the districts turned it down.