In high-risk industries like O&G, chemical processing and manufacturing, structural integrity is a critical safety concern.
Facility siting studies play an integral role in assessing and mitigating risks, and explosion-resistant buildings provide essential protection for those who work in these industries and for critical infrastructure. Their use mitigates the risk of catastrophic damage from explosions when every second counts.
Unlike conventional structures, explosion-resistant buildings are engineered to withstand calculated levels of blast over-pressure. The design intent is to control a building’s structural response and to reduce hazards such as debris and fire, ensuring that occupants survive an accident.
In some areas, explosion resistance alone may not be enough. Explosions can lead to fires or toxic gas releases. When these risks are present, a building should also offer fire and toxic gas protection —making it a true multi-hazard structure.
Steel buildings from RedGuard are inherently resistant to certain fires, such as flash fires that accompany explosions. For more intense fires, like jet or pool fires, RedGuard uses a combination of wall assemblies, insulation and intumescent coatings to meet facility needs.
To guard against toxic gas exposure, RedGuard provides gas detection systems that alert occupants, specialized HVAC systems with positive pressure to block gases and airlock entries for high-hazard environments requiring shelter-in-place protocols.
Explosion-resistant buildings should be independently blast-tested and rated to withstand a calculated blast pressure, guaranteeing that the building remains standing in the event of an explosion and protects those inside. The calculated blast pressure should only be provided as part of a siting analysis performed by a qualified engineering firm.
Explosion-resistant buildings are engineered to withstand specific levels of blast pressure. These levels are determined based on the risk assessment of the site and the potential for explosions in a specific area. For example, an oil refinery may require a higher level of blast resistance due to the volatile chemicals used in the facility, while a manufacturing plant may have less stringent requirements based on the materials it handles.
Explosion-resistant designs are tailored to the expected threat level, allowing the building to withstand an explosion and protect people and assets inside. How much damage a building could have in an explosion is referred to as a building’s response level:
Low response. Minimal damage; ensuring operational continuity and safety.
Medium response. Widespread damage; the building may need repairs, but it keeps occupants safe.
High response. A high level of structural damage; occupants could sustain injuries. These buildings should never be occupied in high-risk areas.
In 2007, RedGuard was the first manufacturer in the explosion-resistant building industry to independently test its designs and make the results of the blast test available to potential buyers and customers. In the following years, other companies followed suit and performed their own blast tests, but none as transparently as RedGuard. Some manufacturers tested but did not use independent third parties to perform the tests. These two points make up an important distinction among blast-resistant building manufacturers.
In 2020, RedGuard tested its explosion-resistant designs again. This time, RedGuard had two independent third parties involved in the field test, with a blast charge almost five times the size of its original test. Once again, the company made the results available to potential customers, as well as posted videos and summaries online.
While it may seem reasonable for a company to rely on its engineers to test its designs — citing the need to protect trade secrets — this approach creates a clear conflict of interest. Without independent testing, there’s no external oversight to ensure that the test results are accurate and unbiased.
The concern is even greater when companies rely on outdated test data or make significant design changes without retesting. A blast test conducted years ago on an older iteration of their design does not prove that a newer, modified explosion-resistant building will perform the same way under explosive forces. Without recent independent testing, these companies are selling unverified designs — potentially putting lives at risk.
Even if a company separates its engineering, construction and sales teams, they all ultimately serve the same organization with shared financial incentives. This interconnected structure makes it difficult to ensure truly objective testing. That’s why independent, third-party blast testing on recent designs remains the gold standard for verifying the safety and reliability of explosion-resistant buildings.
For more information, visit redguard.com or call (855) 733-4827.
