Similar Posts

4 Comments

  1. I think Booker was completely confused by the fact the EN 13501-1 was a classification system, but consisted of different test methods which gave different grades. There was nothing stopping, as you say us raising the requirement to limited combustibility or A2, or better.

    I am very interested to see BRE’s wallpaper tests and the fact they found Class 0 was a weaker test than its European counterparts – I have come across the same indication, as Alucobond PE and Alpolic PE both have Class C-D European rating but a Class 0 UK rating.

    http://www.alpolic.com/alpolic-intl/downloads/cat_alpolic_alpolicfr.pdf

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160620173451/http://www.alucobond.com/alucobond-fire-classification.html

    Alucobond PE was withdrawn from sale around September of last year, and they made a statement after Grenfell noting that Alucobond Plus is now their standard product and A2 what they recommend for high rises

    http://www.alucobond.com/news1.html?&no_cache=1&L=0&mode=single&postid=162046383416

    They also seemed to have had rushed BRE BS 8414 tests done and noted, but results only available on request

    http://www.alucobond.com/news1.html?&no_cache=1&L=0&mode=single&postid=162621697071

    Also a note about what BBA certs do and don’t do (mirrored from the BBA site?)

    http://www.alucobond.com/news1.html?&no_cache=1&L=0&mode=single&postid=162816005256

  2. Thanks a lot, John. That Alpolic PE is Class 0 but Euro C-D is striking. Second link not working for me.

    Very interesting that Alcubond seem to have passed BS 8414 with their FR ACM (‘plus’). That’s the first one I have seen, and I wasn’t sure which way it would go. I am slightly concerned about the single BRE 135 criterion: http://theriveroflife.com/2017/06/26/grenfell-tower-was-the-cladding-legal-or-not-part-2/ but it’s definitely a severe test.

    The BBA is being disingenuous I think in pretending (?) that the BRE cone calorimeter tests ‘do not relate to the requirements of the Building Regulations’. They do relate directly to the A2 class. But I agree with them that the panels were not required to achieve A2 until the DCLG decreed that they did post-Grenfell: http://theriveroflife.com/2017/07/24/grenfell-tower-why-the-acm-panels-were-in-compliance-with-the-building-regulations/

    Andrew

  3. Andrew, just checked the Alucobond archive link, still working here, you need to scroll down for the fire data, where it shows Alucobond PE reached Class D (Europe) and Class 0 (GB).

    Regarding Alucobond PLUS (70% mineral, 30% PE core) passing BS 8414, I suspect it manages it the same way Xtratherm phenolic insulation passes it , basically by being completely sandwiched between non or limited combustibility panels, sheathing boards and fibre insulation.

    http://www.xtratherm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/xtratherm-rainscreen-whitepaper-uk.pdf

    You might be interested to read this pdf that gives a detailed history of the background and development of the US NFPA 285 external wall cladding test

    http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/assets/products-and-services/construction-materials/assets/Navigating_Wall_Assembly_Fire_Testing.pdf

    It might be noted it was originally developed by the plastics industry to convince the US authorities that their products could be used safely (there previously having been a non combustible rule on high rise wall surfaces).

  4. Thanks a lot, John. My broadband provider was blocking access to web.archive. org for some reason.

    The Euro Class D for Alucobond & C-D for Alpolic is very interesting. I wonder how B was achieved for Reynobond PE by both BBA and CSTB (http://theriveroflife.com/2017/06/29/grenfell-tower-was-the-cladding-legal-or-not-part-3/)

    With BS 8414, as I understand it, they (normally, I suppose) put a fire barrier round the hearth, which represents the break-out window. As it was explained to me recently, the insulation can be completely protected by this fire barrier – but not the outer cladding in the same way. Would be interested in your thoughts on that.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *