Connor Minihane: How PFP professionals can utilise BIM to achieve their sustainability goals

I’m not going to begin this piece by explaining what ‘BIM’ means; it has been an industry buzzword this last decade and will no doubt continue to be. But what I do wish to dive into is how our fellow passive fire protection professionals, governed by socio-political circumstances, can utilise ‘BIM’ as a form of awareness of their carbon footprint, and thus endeavour to mitigate their emissions and play a role in shaping a sustainable future; at the very least, we owe this to ourselves as occupants of this land, not to mention owing this to those who will - one day - succeed us.

None of us are exempt from the daily alarms of global warming, screaming at us from our TVs, newspapers, and social media. As revealed in Figure 1, global CO2 emissions are evidently rising - not falling.

Sustainability is not and should not be a corporate badge of ‘community responsibility’. Choosing sustainability is choosing to have an oxygen mask or not. Without further ado, let’s explore how we - passive fire protection professionals - can take steps towards a sustainable world via the adoption of BIM technologies.

Within the BIM world, the most crucial component is the “I” for “Information”. Without this information (or “asset data”), all you have is meaningless geometry, telling you nothing. A 3D model is nothing more than a cocktail of geometry containing its respective asset data, telling you exactly what it is and how it performs within the building asset. These geometries, irrespective of their discipline, can be under one of the following 3 categories: a system (Ss), a product (Pr), or non-specific. The first two are self-explanatory, and the latter serves a purpose only for additional context, such as a “spatial coordination box”. For example, informing the modeller not to trespass (clash with) this space with their system or product.

Therefore, if a fire protection professional wished to inform their project team members of the carbon impact of their design/installation, one should solely turn their attention to these systems and products within their model. In PFP, we do not install systems as such, but of course, we have a vast catalogue of products we propose and install. Therefore, let’s now dive into how this sustainability asset data can be stored within a PFP product and how we can share this information with the wider project team.

To ensure I do not fall victim to the commercial preference of a particular manufacturer and product, for this exercise, I will keep the product specification and carbon data generic and non-specific. Moreover, a definitive set of carbon data (“carbon footprint” / “embodied carbon”) of a specific product is hard to come by. This is because its life-cycle carbon emissions depend on:

• The processing of its raw materials (its extraction process: mining, quarrying, etc.)
• Its energy consumption and sources in its manufacturing (transport of raw materials, etc.)
• Volume of recycled materials for processing/manufacture
• Transport from the manufacturing site to the project site

It is also very difficult to procure such data as manufacturers do not always publish their carbon data, whether this is for commercial legacy reasons (this can be market dominance or commercial protection), or simply the logistics of tracking and recording such data is too difficult to operate and maintain, especially for niche products. Carbon data to one person can also mean something different to another, as it can mean any of the following:

• Its global warming potential (GWP)
• Its life-cycle assessment data (LCA)
• Carbon intensity/consumption during manufacturing
• Its embodied carbon (measured either CO₂e per kg or per cubic metre)

If we focus on a fire protection compound product specification for this exercise, we can break down its material components (albeit a generic composition) and from there guesstimate its overall carbon impact. Note: for this guestimate I must exclude site-specific transport, its packaging, and its waste, as this is not disclosed publicly and is too difficult to pin-point against a credible example.

Its generic composition:

• Lightweight graded fire-resisting aggregates
• Organic binders
• Gypsum cements (Calcium Sulphate)

From here, we need to take the following steps.

We can use “proxy” data from similar materials to the above.

The compound is mostly gypsum-based and aggregates. Using published carbon data of these products, adjusted to density, proportion of binder vs aggregate, its transport range etc, we can have a solid chance of estimating its carbon impact. Run a rough calculation on its embodied carbon (omitting transport).

Formula:

Approx embodied carbon (reported CO₂e per kg per m2) = carbon per kg per material (e.g. gypsum) x mass fraction and sum + estimates for transport (e.g. kg × distance × transport emission factor).

With the above formula, we can now use product datasheets (using various manufacturers) and gauge an estimate on its carbon values (calculating a range and then taking the worst case) as per its generic composition.

The below results are given per kg per m² at 100 mm thickness (a common application/tested detail):

• Lightweight graded fire-resisting aggregates = 0.20-0.21 kg CO₂e/kg (carbon lifecycle estimate)

Worst case value to be used of 0.21 kg CO₂e/kg

• Organic binders

No data available; omitted from formula.

• Gypsum cements (Calcium Sulphate) = 0.12 kg CO₂e/kg (source: (Spec, 2025).

As we are not focusing on a specific manufacturer’s product, and albeit these mix recipes are not for the public domain, the following plausible range has been assumed: 70–90% gypsum cements with 10–30% aggregates by mass (typical for gypsum fire mortars, reliable to use as a comparison to compound).

Using the information above in conjunction with the formula, we reach the following calculations of embodied carbon:

• Per kg of dry compound = 0.129–0.146 kg CO₂e/kg

Worst case value to be used of 0.146 kg CO₂e/kg

• Per m² at 100 mm thickness (common detail) = 10–12 kg CO₂e/m² at 100 mm

Worst case value to be used of 12.5 kg CO₂e/m²

Circling back to BIM utilisation, let’s now bring these embodied carbon values into the 3D environment, contained within a manufacturer’s specific product (we call this a “Revit family”).

Below I provide a step-by-step on how these values can be brought into the 3D world for project stakeholders to consider, accommodating the project’s carbon-impact awareness and thus its sustainability targets.

Connor Minihane is Head of BIM at CLM Fireproofing. Information from this article will feature in our upcoming Sustainability Guide for the PFP sector. To get involved, or offer your expertise in this field, get in touch with Louis at louis.bradley@asfp.org.uk