Similar Posts


  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.

    Alucobond PE was withdrawn from sale around September of last year, and they made a statement after Grenfell noting that Alucobond Plus is now their standard product and A2 what they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

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

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

  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: 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:


  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.

    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

    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 (

    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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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