The combustion performance grade of decorative and finishing materials does not meet fire acceptance requirements.
Control of the combustion performance grades of architectural decoration and finishing materials is an important component of building fire protection design, directly affecting the fire spread rate and the toxicity of smoke during a fire. According to GB 50222 "Code for Fire Prevention in Design of Interior Decoration of Buildings" and GB 50016 "Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings," different building categories and different functional areas have differentiated mandatory requirements for the combustion performance grades of finishing materials for ceilings, walls, floors, partitions and fixed furniture. For example, ceiling materials in evacuation corridors and safety exit lobbies must use Grade A non-combustible materials, while walls in ordinary offices may use Grade B1 flame-retardant materials and meet smoke toxicity requirements. In actual projects, however, problems are mainly concentrated in the following aspects: First, the labeling of material performance grades at the design stage is not sufficiently standardized; construction drawings commonly contain vague descriptions such as high-grade decorative materials and environmentally friendly materials, without clearly specifying combustion performance grade designations, leaving construction units without a clear basis for material selection during procurement. Second, to reduce material procurement costs, construction units unauthorized substitute materials of lower combustion performance grades without obtaining confirmation of design changes. For example, Grade B1 wall decorative panels are replaced with Grade B2 products, or Grade A ceiling materials are replaced with Grade B1 products. Third, acceptance inspection at material entry is not strictly controlled; some projects only verify product qualification certificates and factory inspection reports, and fail to sample and seal materials under supervisor witness and send them to third-party testing institutions for combustion performance re-testing as required, allowing counterfeit and inferior materials to pass. From an operational impact perspective, non-compliant combustion performance of finishing materials is one of the most common rectification items in fire acceptance; once determined as non-compliant by the fire authority, the entire decoration project cannot pass fire acceptance and the project cannot be put into use. For example, a commercial complex was refused fire acceptance because the Grade B1 test report for wall decorative materials in the third-floor dining area did not match the actual product; the rectification period was 45 days, with direct economic losses of approximately RMB 6.8 million. From a maintenance perspective, if a building already in use is found to have finishing materials with substandard combustion performance, it will be listed as a major fire hazard unit and ordered to rectify within a time limit. At the cost level, the procurement unit price of Grade A materials is usually 2-4 times that of Grade B1 materials, but the cost of demolition and rework due to non-compliant materials is far higher than the cost of one-time procurement of compliant materials. The core measures to solve such problems include: at the design stage, marking item by item in drawings and technical specifications the combustion performance grade requirements for finishing materials at each location and incorporating them into the material technical specification; before material procurement, the construction unit submitting the material and equipment submission form to the supervisor and the owner, attached with material samples, product manuals, type test reports and declarations of conformity; implementing tripartite joint acceptance upon material entry, sampling and sealing under supervisor witness, and sending samples to a testing institution with CMA qualification for combustion performance re-testing. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management. From the systems engineering perspective of engineering management, solving this problem requires coordinated advancement across four dimensions: institutional design, process control, technical support and cultural development. At the institutional design level, clear responsibility boundaries and operating procedures must be established, translating code requirements into executable job responsibilities and work standards. At the process control level, full-lifecycle quality supervision and dynamic correction must be implemented to ensure that the work results of each stage meet expected objectives. At the technical support level, information-based methods and intelligent tools should be actively introduced to improve the precision and efficiency of management. At the cultural development level, quality awareness and compliance awareness must be cultivated among all staff to create an organizational atmosphere pursuing excellence. Only by organically combining these four dimensions can the quality common problems and management chronic issues that repeatedly occur in engineering construction be fundamentally solved, achieving continuous improvement and excellent performance in project management.