30 Dec Raising the bar on fire safety in the Middle East

Barry Allan, PPG Global Key Account Manager, Infrastructure, Protective and Marine Coatings, discusses why global standards should drive passive fire protection.

The Middle East’s US$3.9 trillion (AED $14.3 trillion) construction pipeline has pushed fire safety to the forefront of project planning, according to a 2024 Jones Lang LaSalle report. As airports, stadiums and megaprojects rise across the region, industry leaders call for alignment with global passive fire protection standards to address increasingly complex fire risks.

Project teams (from owners and engineers to fabricators and applicators) face growing pressure to choose passive fire protection (PFP) systems that exceed compliance. PFP systems need to perform under real-world conditions and meet modern building codes. Outdated test methods no longer reflect today’s risks or the complexity of regional megaprojects.

Why the Middle East is moving beyond BS 476 Parts 20/21

For decades, British Standard (BS) 476 Parts 20 and 21 influenced fire protection strategies across the Middle East, largely due to historical ties and longstanding familiarity. These two parts specifically define how to test the fire resistance of structural building elements.

However, BS 476 Parts 20 and 21 are fire test methods only. While they define performance criteria such as integrity, insulation and loadbearing capacity, they do not explain how to apply the results in broader design scenarios. Documents like the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) Yellow Book, Edition 5, explain how to assess test results.

As infrastructure in the Middle East becomes more advanced, many regional authorities align with more globally recognised standards. For example, the Saudi Building Code (SBC) now references Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 263 as its preferred standard for evaluating structural fire resistance. While the SBC allows the use of “equivalent” standards, the trend clearly favours those with stronger system-based evaluations and third-party recognition.

Compared to international standards such as UL 263 or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E119, BS 476 lacks the ability to evaluate fire performance under realistic load and restraint conditions. It does not simulate complete building systems, which is increasingly necessary for today’s high-rise, mixed-use and mega-infrastructure projects.

The United Kingdom’s regulatory guidance will officially remove references to BS 476 for fire resistance testing as of September 2 2029. That decision reflects the standard’s limited ability to meet modern safety and design needs. For large-scale projects in the Middle East (many of which involve cross-border teams, international stakeholders and extended timelines) continued reliance on a standard that is being phased out presents unnecessary long-term risk.

Any fire resistance specification selected today must still be valid, recognised and enforceable 10 to 15 years from now. Specifying UL 263 or ASTM E119 helps ensure consistency, performance clarity and regulatory durability, which all remain essential for infrastructure that will shape the region for generations to come.

Test the full system, not just the product

Most failures occur in the field, not the lab. They can happen when products meet field conditions. This reality makes system-level testing essential.

Fire safety depends on how coatings perform under actual loading, structural constraints and thermal stress. Proper testing accounts for beams, columns, floor assemblies and load conditions. A coating applied to an unloaded, unrestrained column does not represent performance on a roof truss supporting HVAC systems.

Third-party tests under UL 263 and ASTM E119 simulate full configurations. They examine how primers, topcoats and intumescent layers interact during fire exposure. They define the dry film thickness (DFT) needed to meet 30, 60, 90 or 120-minute ratings. These factors cannot be left to interpretation.

The region’s most advanced codes, including SBC 801 and the United Arab Emirates Fire and Life Safety Code, now expect this level of evaluation. Owners, contractors and fabricators must demand it as well.

Why standard choice matters

Global specifications exist because not all fire test standards deliver the same level of assurance. UL 263 and ASTM E119 are designed to simulate realistic structural fire conditions. They apply defined loads and evaluate failure based on insulation performance and structural integrity. By comparison, BS 476 Parts 20 and 21 focus on controlled laboratory conditions and do not assess the performance of complete systems under realistic restraint or environmental stress.

A key difference is that BS 476 does not include durability testing. While it outlines how to test fire resistance in ideal conditions, it does not measure how materials perform after exposure to humidity, temperature changes or mechanical wear. UL 263, supported by the methods in UL 2431, includes durability tests that reflect how fire protection systems behave over time in real environments.

Products certified under UL and ASTM are typically subject to third-party factory audits, listing programmes and regular compliance reviews. BS 476 listings can also be certified through programmes such as Certifire or listed in the Red Book, which adds oversight. However, the standard itself does not require system-level verification or environmental conditioning of tested assemblies.

Some suggest BS 476 tests more pieces of steel than UL or ASTM, but the number of specimens alone does not determine reliability. What matters more is how tests are designed and what failure criteria are applied. UL and ASTM methods use well-defined thresholds for load, temperature and time, which provide more consistent and repeatable results.

Without consistent benchmarks and durability criteria, systems that pass under one test method may not perform the same under another. This gap can lead to confusion in specifications, unexpected performance issues or delays during approvals. Understanding how a system was tested and under what conditions proves essential to making informed decisions. Specifiers and asset owners must ask the right questions to ensure confidence in the fire protection systems they choose.

Durability matters as much as fire resistance

Middle East conditions bring extreme heat, dust, humidity and ultraviolet (UV) exposure. Coatings must do more than withstand fire. They must survive the elements for years without breaking down.

Standards like UL 2431 now evaluate environmental durability. They simulate ageing, weathering and thermal cycling. This testing helps ensure the system performs not just on day one but over the full life of the structure.

Durability becomes even more critical in modular construction when coatings on steel face transport, handling or delayed construction. Premature cracking or delamination can compromise fire protection. Owners and engineers must select systems with a proven ability to endure climate, time, transportation and handling.

What developers and contractors should ask

Coating systems carry long-term safety implications. Owners, contractors, fabricators and applicators must all ask clear, consistent questions before specifying a PFP product.

• Has the product passed testing under UL 263 or ASTM E119?
• Did testing include full structural assemblies under maximum load?
• Were primers and topcoats tested as part of the system?
• Has the coating been tested for durability in accordance with UL 2431, EAD 350402-00-1106? If UL 2431 was used, does the test align with the correct environmental classification for the intended project conditions?
• Can the system deliver consistent performance across different environments?

When suppliers cannot answer with third-party data, find one who can.

A single global standard for a connected market

Most large projects in the Middle East involve international teams. The owner may sit in Saudi Arabia, the engineering firm in Europe, and the fabricator in Asia. These realities demand one clear language of safety.

UL 263 and ASTM E119 offer that language. They give global teams a shared framework to evaluate performance, document compliance and reduce confusion. When projects cross borders, safety cannot rely on legacy or local interpretation.

A path forward

The Middle East continues to shape skylines, transport networks and economic corridors. These projects require the highest level of fire safety to protect people, preserve investments and reputations. Global fire testing standards reflect the future of fire protection. They bring clarity, consistency and a higher bar for performance. When project teams specify coatings that pass full system testing under the most rigorous standards and conditions, they reduce risk and increase confidence.

Case examples reflect regional needs 

Projects outside the Middle East already reflect the shift toward global testing. For example:

Stadium Projects (UK):
Two major stadiums during the most recent season applied PPG STEELGUARD® 951 and STEELGUARD® 801/851 systems. These high-traffic environments demanded advanced fire resistance without sacrificing structural design or timelines. The thin-film intumescent systems delivered proven fire performance and corrosion protection under stringent stadium safety regulations.

UK Commercial Campus Development:
On a major multi-phase commercial development, PPG intumescent coatings were introduced after a competitor’s system failed during the initial phase. The project team selected PPG STEELGUARD® systems to ensure reliable fire performance and consistent aesthetic quality across subsequent construction phases. The change supported the project’s recovery without impacting timeline or visual continuity.

These examples show that projects can meet strict fire safety standards without compromising schedule, cost or appearance.

Fire Protection Testing Whitepaper | PPG Protective & Marine Coatings

This feature appeared in issue 68 of Fire Middle East magazine.