29.07.2026

Fire Protection with Rigips: An Overview of the Basics and Requirements

Building design

Four fire extinguishers on a green wall—a serene image that balances safety and aesthetics. Photo: jandira_sonnendeck/Unsplash

Gypsum board is considered a standard material in modern construction, but its true strength lies not in its surface but in its fire resistance: Fire protection with Rigips is a precise, standards-based system that leverages the physical property of the gypsum core—to absorb heat and slow the spread of flames—to provide a reliable protection concept for walls, ceilings, and cladding. Anyone who understands how gypsum board reacts in the event of a fire, why certain system configurations must be tested and certified, and what requirements building codes and standards impose can use this material effectively and safely.

Why gypsum is inherently fire-resistant as a building material and how this mechanism works physically
Which fire resistance classes and classifications apply according to European and national standards
What the term “Rigips” means in the context of fire protection products and how it differs from standard gypsum board
Which system configurations are suitable for which fire resistance classes and what is important during installation
How to design and construct fire-resistant walls, suspended ceilings, and shaft linings in accordance with standards
What role approvals, system tests, and proof of suitability play
What typical installation errors compromise fire protection performance
How fire protection using gypsum board is integrated into a building’s overall fire protection concept

Gypsum in Fire: The Physical Basis of Fire Protection with Rigips

Fire protection with Rigips is based on a chemical property of gypsum that distinguishes it from almost all other mineral building materials: Gypsum in its bound form as calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO₄ · 2H₂O), contains water of crystallization molecules that are firmly bound within the crystal lattice. When gypsum is heated, a process known as calcination begins at approximately 100 to 120 degrees Celsius—that is, the release of this chemically bound water. This process is endothermic: it absorbs energy rather than releasing it. As long as water is escaping from the gypsum core, the temperature on the side of the board facing away from the fire remains well below critical levels. In building physics, this mechanism is referred to as a “thermal buffer” and is the key factor underlying the fire resistance of gypsum board.

Depending on the board type and manufacturer, the gypsum core of a standard gypsum board contains between 18 and 21 percent by mass of water bound as crystal water. Special fire-resistant panels, marketed under names such as Rigips RF (Resistance to Fire) or similar manufacturer-specific names, also contain glass fibers that mechanically hold the core together even after calcination. Without this reinforcement, the calcined gypsum core would disintegrate after the water has escaped and lose its protective effect before the fire resistance duration required by standards is reached. The glass fibers prevent this disintegration and significantly extend the panel’s structural integrity in the event of a fire. This difference between standard panels and fire-resistant panels is of central importance for code-compliant design.

Added to this is the board’s paper facing. The paper itself is combustible, but it generally contributes to the classification of the overall system because it is thin and burns off quickly when exposed to fire without significantly impairing the thermal protective effect of the gypsum core. Crucially, gypsum board is generally classified as Class A2-s1,d0 according to the European building material classification standard EN 13501-1, which means: non-combustible with very low smoke emission and no burning droplets. This classification applies to the gypsum core; the entire system, including the substructure and insulation, is evaluated separately.

Normative Basis: Fire Resistance Classes and Classifications

Fire protection with Rigips cannot be fully understood without knowledge of the normative principles. The central European standard for the classification of the fire resistance of building elements is EN 13501-2, which is based on the results of fire tests conducted in accordance with EN 1364 (for non-load-bearing building elements) and EN 1365 (for load-bearing building elements). Classification is based on three criteria, abbreviated by letters: R stands for load-bearing capacity (Resistance), E for fire integrity (Integrity), and I for thermal insulation in the event of a fire (Insulation). The number following the letters indicates the minimum duration in minutes for which the building element must meet the respective requirement.

For non-load-bearing partition walls made of gypsum board, the most common requirements are EI 30, EI 60, or EI 90—that is, fire integrity and thermal insulation for 30, 60, or 90 minutes. For suspended ceilings that function as fire-resistant ceilings, the target classification is EI 30 or EI 60, supplemented by the addition “from below,” which indicates the direction of fire exposure. Shaft linings for utility shafts are classified from EI 30 to EI 120, depending on their location within the building and the requirements of the respective state building code. In Germany, the Model Building Code (MBO) and state-specific building codes regulate which fire resistance class is required for which building component in which building type. Building classes 1 through 5 according to the MBO define graduated requirements that increase with rising building height and intensity of use.

In addition to the European classification, Germany also uses the older national terminology based on DIN 4102, which employs terms such as F 30-B, F 60-A, or F 90-A. The letter following the hyphen indicates the building material class of the materials used (A for non-combustible, B for combustible), while the number denotes the fire resistance duration in minutes. Although the European classification according to EN 13501 is increasingly replacing DIN 4102, both systems are still used side by side in practice, particularly in older approvals and test certificates. Planners must be familiar with both systems and be able to correctly classify them to avoid errors in tendering and construction.

System Configurations for Fire-Rated Walls: Construction, Testing, and Approval

Fire protection with Rigips is achieved not through individual panels, but through tested system assemblies. A system assembly comprises the substructure made of steel profiles (stud frame), the cladding consisting of one or more layers of gypsum board, mineral wool insulation installed in the cavity where applicable, and the standard-compliant execution of all connections, joints, and penetrations. Any deviation from a tested system assembly can invalidate the fire resistance rating, because the test evaluated precisely this assembly and not a similar but modified system.

Manufacturers such as Rigips (a brand name of the Saint-Gobain Group) publish comprehensive system catalogs in which tested systems are documented with all relevant parameters: profile dimensions, panel thicknesses, number of layers, type and thickness of insulation, fastening spacings, and connection details. These system catalogs are not non-binding recommendations but rather an integral part of the proof of suitability for use. For products that are not covered by a harmonized European standard or for which CE marking is insufficient, a general building authority approval (abZ) from the German Institute for Building Technology (DIBt) or a European Technical Assessment (ETA) is required in Germany. Designers are required to be familiar with the applicable proof of suitability and to keep it available on the construction site.

A typical construction for an EI 60 partition wall consists of a steel stud frame with CW profiles, sheathed on both sides with two layers of 12.5 mm-thick Rigips RF fire-rated panels, with a mineral wool filling in the cavity. The profiles are spaced at a defined center-to-center distance, and the panels are installed in a cross-bond pattern so that the joints of the first layer are covered by the second layer. The joints are not filled with joint compound but are sealed solely by the cross-bonding pattern, because filling the joints does not serve any fire-protection function and the testing was conducted without filling the joints. This detail is often misunderstood in practice.

For higher fire resistance ratings, such as EI 90 or EI 120, either more layers of panels are installed, thicker profiles are used, or special fire-rated panels with a higher gypsum content and reinforced glass fiber reinforcement are employed. Some system configurations combine gypsum wallboard with gypsum fiber boards, which have an even higher gypsum content and no paper facing, thereby offering a higher bulk density and improved fire resistance performance. Gypsum fiber boards (for example, under the brand name Rigidur) should be distinguished from gypsum board, even though they are often used in the same context.

Fire-Resistant Ceilings, Shaft Linings, and Special Applications

In addition to partition walls, suspended ceilings made of gypsum board are one of the most common applications of fire protection using Rigips. A fire-rated ceiling protects the underlying structural ceiling and the installations within it from direct exposure to fire from below. It can be designed either as a standalone fire-resistant ceiling, classified independently of the supporting structure, or as a component of an integrated system in which the exposed ceiling and suspended ceiling are evaluated together. The attachment of the substructure to the exposed ceiling is a critical factor here: If steel hangers are used that lose their load-bearing capacity in the event of a fire, the entire ceiling may fail prematurely. Tested fire-rated ceilings therefore use either stainless steel hangers with proven fire resistance or special spring clips that limit the ceiling’s sagging in the event of a fire.

Shaft linings for service shafts containing ventilation ducts, electrical cables, and water and wastewater pipes place special demands on fire protection with Gypsum Board. The shaft itself must function as an independent fire protection unit that prevents a fire on one floor from spreading to other floors via the shaft. To achieve this, the cladding made of fire-rated panels is mounted on a steel stud frame, all penetrations are sealed with tested fire-rated collars or fire-rated plugs, and the shaft doors are designed as classified fire-rated doors. Any opening in the shaft that is not sealed in accordance with standards invalidates the classification of the entire shaft.

Another area of application is the protection of steel beams and columns. Steel loses a significant portion of its load-bearing capacity at temperatures of approximately 500 to 600 degrees Celsius. By encasing them with gypsum board fire-resistant panels, the time until this critical temperature is reached can be extended to the duration required by standards. This cladding must be seamless and have minimal joints, as any gap allows heat to penetrate. For steel components with complex geometries, fire-resistant plasters or fire-resistant coatings are often used as an alternative or supplement; however, these are subject to different testing standards and must not be combined with gypsum board systems without appropriate proof of suitability.

Installation Errors and Their Consequences for Fire Protection

The most common errors in fire protection with Rigips do not stem from a lack of knowledge about the panel products, but rather from a lack of understanding of the system requirements and the importance of details. A common mistake is installing electrical boxes, light switches, or outlets in fire-rated walls without tested covers. A simple flush-mounted box creates an opening in the paneling that acts as a weak point in the event of a fire. Tested systems either provide for special fire-rated covers or require that boxes be staggered on opposite sides of the wall so that no direct penetration occurs.

Another common mistake concerns the connections between the fire-rated wall and the rough ceiling, rough floor, and adjacent structural elements. The connection must be designed so that no gaps are created through which fire or hot gases can penetrate. Typically, a strip of mineral wool is inserted into the ceiling and floor connections and sealed with a certified fire-resistant silicone or fire-resistant acrylic sealant. If, instead, a standard acrylic sealant or no sealant at all is used, the connection is ineffective from a fire protection standpoint, even if it looks visually flawless. On construction sites, this point is often neglected because it is no longer visible after completion.

The fastening spacings of the panels on the substructure are also specified by standards and must not be increased arbitrarily. Excessively large spacing between the screws causes the panels to detach sooner in the event of a fire, because the gypsum core is mechanically weakened after calcination and is held in place only by a sufficient number of fastening points. The same applies to the center-to-center distance of the stud profiles: Too great a distance reduces the system’s rigidity and can cause the wall to collapse sooner in the event of a fire than the test results indicated.

Subsequent modifications to fire-rated walls, such as cutting openings for doors or conduits, always require a re-evaluation to determine whether the modified structure still meets the original classification. A door in a fire-rated wall must be designed as a classified fire-rated door with a fire resistance rating at least equal to that of the wall. The door frame must be integrated into the wall structure in accordance with standards, because the connection area between the door frame and the wall sheathing is a known weak point.

Fire Protection with Rigips in the Context of the Overall Fire Protection Concept

Fire protection with Rigips is not an isolated issue but rather part of a comprehensive fire protection concept that integrates structural, systems-based, and organizational fire protection measures. Structural fire protection using gypsum board components serves to create fire compartments—that is, to physically separate areas within the building from one another—so that a fire does not spread uncontrollably to other areas and people have sufficient time to evacuate. This function is fulfilled only if all components of a fire compartment—that is, walls, ceilings, doors, glazing, and penetrations—have the same or a compatible fire resistance rating. An EI 60 wall with an unclassified door does not provide an EI 60 fire compartment, but merely a wall with a weak point.

In Germany, responsibility for the planning and execution of fire protection rests with several parties simultaneously. The architect or planner is responsible for the fire protection concept and for ensuring that building components are designed in accordance with standards. The contractor is responsible for proper execution in accordance with the tested system designs. The construction manager is obligated to supervise the work and document any deviations. In complex buildings, a fire safety officer or fire safety planner is increasingly brought in to coordinate the overall concept and monitor the interfaces between structural and systems-based fire protection.

It is important for designers to understand that while Rigips systems are comprehensively documented by the manufacturer, the responsibility for the correct selection and execution lies with the designer. Manufacturer guidance and system catalogs are helpful resources, but they do not replace the designer’s own assessment of whether a system is suitable for the specific application. Close coordination with the manufacturer—and, if necessary, with the relevant building authority—is essential, particularly in cases involving unusual geometries, combinations of different systems, or retroactive modifications.

Plasterboard-based fire protection systems have proven to be reliable, cost-effective, and flexible in practice. They can be integrated into virtually any type of building, are quick to install, and offer additional acoustic and thermal benefits. Their limitations arise in situations involving high mechanical loads, moisture, or extreme fire loads—such as in industrial buildings with special fire loads, in wet areas without adequate moisture protection, or in areas subject to heavy mechanical stress. For these cases, other fire protection systems are available, though they are generally more expensive and more complex to install. Fire protection using Rigips remains the most cost-effective and best-documented system of its kind for the vast majority of building construction projects.

Conclusion: Precision as a Prerequisite for Effective Fire Protection

Fire protection with Rigips is not a matter that can be reduced to simply selecting the right panel. It is a system whose success or failure depends on everything from the physical properties of the gypsum and its regulatory classification to millimeter-precise installation on the construction site. Those who understand the fundamentals—namely, the endothermic calcination mechanism, the significance of fire resistance classes, the mandatory nature of tested system configurations, and the critical importance of joints and penetrations—can use gypsum board as a fire protection material with full confidence and expertise.

The world of standards surrounding EN 13501, EN 1364, and DIN 4102 is complex, but not impenetrable. Once you understand the system, you quickly realize that the requirements are not arbitrary but are based on real fire tests conducted under defined conditions. Any deviation from the tested configuration is therefore not merely a formal violation of the rules, but a physically justified compromise to the protective effect. This connection between testing, standards, and installation is at the heart of every fire protection concept using gypsum board.

In practice, this means that fire protection with Rigips is not achieved through good intentions alone, but through careful planning, consistent execution, and comprehensive documentation. Buildings in which this standard is met offer their occupants protection that saves lives in an emergency. This is the benchmark against which every planning and construction decision in this area must be measured.

14.04.2025

Project

besgen landscape architecture: outdoor facilities Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Haus

Building design

The redesign of the entrance area of the community center transforms a previously unsafe concrete arena into an inviting, colorful seating arena for young people. Noël Besgen, besgen landscape architecture

The redesign of the entrance area to the community center was a major challenge. Despite years of experience in designing outdoor areas, it was difficult to redesign the steep “concrete arena”, which was no longer safe to use. In the following project presentation, the besgen landscape architecture firm explains how it nevertheless succeeded in transforming this space into an inviting area.

The starting point was the redesign of the steep, no longer safe to use concrete arena that leads to the “Sonderbar” children’s and youth club in the community center. The aim was to create a friendly and colorful entrance situation that invites people to the “Sonderbar”. A seating arena is intended to invite young people and confirmands to linger, chill out and celebrate, while also appealing to everyone who passes by. As part of the design, the extended outdoor area was also integrated into the design to create a harmonious overall look for the community garden and make access to the community center more inviting. The greywacke rock seating arena forms a transition and acts as a “front garden bed backdrop” to the community center, which changes over the course of the seasons. Strictly trimmed hedge bands serve as “green hedge railings” and protect the footpath from the flowerbeds. The steps are atmospherically set off by bollard lights in the clusters of shrubs and grasses, while recesses in the path decking serve as small seating niches. Herbaceous perennials were planted at the sides of the flowerbeds to turn the steps into a “scented staircase”.

A connecting element between the front and rear garden areas is the “community meadow”. At the rear is the “community terrace”, which adjoins the worship hall and is slightly higher, like a small bastion. This previously little-used terrace has now been transformed into an extended worship and open space that is used for congregational activities, open-air services, baptisms, meetings and festivities. The terrace is structured by intersecting strips of light-colored slabs and protected from noise and views from the main road by a hedge. Beds of ground cover and vertical grasses reinforce the effect of a sheltered, framed space. Here too, bollard lights in the beds provide atmospheric lighting accents, especially in the evening and in winter.

The garden was designed to be climate-friendly, with robust, low-maintenance plants that can withstand drought, urban climates and cold. The plants are also insect and bee-friendly. The plant beds consist mainly of ground covers, ornamental perennials, grasses and specimen plants that change depending on the season. Especially in summer, white hydrangeas and solitary grasses with taut stems add to the atmosphere.

The selection of plants in the community garden includes a variety of robust and climate-resistant plants. Strictly pruned hedges such as hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and Schmidt’s alpine currant (Ribes alpinum Schmidt) form a structured framework. Flowering plants such as the panicle hydrangea (Hydrangea paniculata Limelight), the autumn anemone (Anemone japonica ‘Honorine Jobert’) and the white summer wood aster (Aster divaricatus Tradescant) provide seasonal color accents. Ground cover plants such as the ground cover rose Noatraum and the ornamental lady’s mantle (Alchemilla epipsila) fill the garden with vibrant greenery. The candle knotweed (Bistorta amplexicaulisLisan) and the cranesbill (Geranium wallichianum Azure Rush) complete the floral variety. Other plants such as steppe sage (Salvia nemorosa Caradonna), coneflower (Rudbeckia fulgida var. sullivantii Goldsturm), mountain mint (Calamintha nepeta Triumphator) and Patagonian verbena (Verbena bonariensis) not only provide aesthetic accents, but also attract insects. The catmint (Nepeta x faassenii) and various grasses, such as the autumn head grass (Sesleria autumnalis) and the garden riding grass (Calamagrostis x acutiflora Karl Foerster`), round off the plant selection and ensure a dynamic garden appearance all year round.

“Every garden is the result of an individual idea,” says Noël Besgen (landscape architect AKNW) – creative idea finder and design-competent planner for all aspects of garden and open space architecture. The starting point is the location, the garden, the square, the street, the park – and people.

The office “besgen Landschaftsarchitektur” was founded in 2008 with a focus on open space and object planning of private gardens. We create innovative, pragmatic, individual and low-maintenance concepts for feasible planning and design proposals for urban garden and open space culture that meet the special requirements of contemporary living and working environments. The designs stand for functionality, timelessness, formal restraint and clear reduction to simplicity. Competent and complete project support from the first sketch to the realized object.

Climate-resilient, sustainable and aesthetic redesign and redesign of the community center’s outdoor facilities as the seasons change. “And in the middle of the paradise garden, the werewolf chills in the sea of flowers,” commented the church community on the opening of the outdoor facilities.

Realization: 2021-2022
Client: Evangelical parish of Sankt Augustin & Niederpleis and Mülldorf
Design + planning: besgen landscape architecture & Noël Besgen I landscape architect AKNW

Our September issue is all about urban oases. Find more exciting projects here.

By the way: The long-awaited vote of the European Parliament on the Nature Restoration Law did not go as planned. Find out more about the result here.

21.12.2024

English eat up Germany?

Building design

The politician Jens Spahn sees German city centres being overrun by the English language and a globalized hipster culture. Our author wishes him more serenity.

Jo, it’s funny, the picture above. A subtle linguistic attack on the common Teutonic tourist. Whether an unconscious act of Germano aversion or rather sloppiness in the Adriatic high season – the impression currently haunting Facebook refers to the great theme of longing and loss in globalization: dealing with one’s own, and foreign, language. An emotional subject. Believe me, I know what I’m talking about – I’m currently living in Mexico and am trying, with moderate success, to improve my Spanish. That’s important, because hardly anyone speaks English here. Unlike in Berlin-Mitte.

Which brings us to the topic. The dominance of English in core tourist areas such as the center of Berlin has just been made an issue by CDU politician (and, according to those in the know, upcoming party star) Jens Spahn. He says that too much English is spoken in Berlin’s hipster cafés. And tries, somewhat strenuously, to combine his position as the only CDU hipster with his Anglo-critical core argumentation. Of course, this is aimed more at the CDU core electorate “out in the country”, people in Wanne-Eickel or Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, who may not speak English as well as the Berlin hipsters Spahn doesn’t appreciate (and like himself, as he casually lets slip).

Very important for Spahn: the reversal of the provincialism accusation. It is not the people from Wanne-Eickel who are provincial, but the hipsters themselves. A popular mental maneuver: take your opponent’s main argument and throw it at them yourself. Am I stupid? No, you are stupid. No, you are. No you…

Now, the presence of English in the tourist centers of our cities – as well as in those of other metropolises – cannot be denied. Occasionally I sit with a German friend at the bar of Berlin’s Soho House and order drinks from the German barman – in English. It does feel a bit strange. But to be honest, it’s not that bad. In any case, it doesn’t give me the identity crisis Spahn is talking about. And the drinks are still good.

What is interesting about Spahn’s criticism, however, is his observation that a kind of global tourism culture is spreading in our centers and replacing everything regional. That’s true, these cultural processes do exist. They also have an architectural impact, in Berlin, for example, through the construction of architecturally disastrous hotel bunkers that signal to Easyjet tourists in particular: This is your place. Berlin has little to counter this as a city due to empty coffers. At least investment is now being made, it seems. But the question is at what point the atmosphere of a city center is actually undermined to such an extent that nothing specific to the city remains.

Although – ultimately, I’m not so pessimistic about this. And that’s because I believe in the power of our cities more than Jens Spahn does. It’s not true that “all of Mitte” or the entire city centre of Munich is degenerating into vulgar, globalized party zones. Rather, backpacker tourism and hipsteritis are being added to other cultural elements. And alongside the aforementioned hotel monstrosities, a lot of good architecture is still being created in our cities. In this respect, dear Mr. Spahn: Relax. Oh sorry – don’t despair, I meant.