APPOINTMENTS & COMPANY NEWS
51
The new Stone Age has arrived P
owder coatings are continually evolving with a number of aesthetic finishes demonstrating variations in colour and
patination. Realistic alternatives to masonry materials such as GRC, pre-cast concrete and Portland Stone can now be realised. Not long ago, the mere prospect of powder
coated aluminium being proposed in lieu of the aforementioned materials would have been seen purely as a value engineering exercise. Whilst this still holds true to a certain extent, the advancements in coatings technology and creative configurations in aluminium design, have enabled it to compete far more closely than ever before. The use of a powder coated aluminium
panel offers a number of significant benefits for those across the supply chain. From an Architect’s perspective, the drive to provide buildings with a sense of solidity and longevity was central to the rise of GRC cladding. By its very nature, it is heavy duty but offers a desired level of refinement. With a GRC-like powder coating, allied to
creative panel design and subsequent fabrication, this design intent can be achieved. Aluminium panels can now be articulated in the form of GRC, ensuring clean lines are achieved whilst retaining the feeling of mass. Aluminium fabricators and installers
forever strive for flexibility and ensuring that complexity is minimised as much as possible during installation. A large part of this stems from the ability to reduce weight. A 3mm pressed cladding panel will typically weigh 8kg/m2 65kg/m2
, whereas this increases to for GRC. This has a threefold effect;
handling is much easier, machinery is reduced, and the supporting framework becomes simpler. Furthermore, should any damage occur during or post-installation, the lightweight nature of aluminium panels facilitates ease of replacement. Significant savings can be realised in material cost when selecting aluminium over
Concrete materials are inherently more
difficult to maintain, with surface treatment and sealant needing to be regularly re- applied. In addition, the risk of efflorescence; a natural occurring phenomenon where unsightly white salts form on the surface layer, cannot be mitigated. For those wishing to retain natural masonry, a compromise can be achieved. It is not uncommon to find examples of GRC/stone being deployed for ground level
GRC; appealing to contractors and building owners alike. When this is allied to the reduction in the amount of bracketing support required, it is not uncommon to achieve 300% decrease in installed cost. To put this into perspective, an external package totalling 5,000 m2 saving of £1m.
elements, whilst a closely matched powder coated aluminium is utilised for parts that sit comfortably above eye level. Of equal importance, is the consideration
would yield a monetary
of longevity and overall maintenance requirements. There is rising expectations of a buildings design life and the need for the full façade envelope to offer a longer service life. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure the building looks good for as long as possible without the need to replace or recoat parts: this is the primary function of super durable powder coatings. Acting as a tough layer of sun block, they offer 5x greater protection from UV when compared to standard technologies (often RAL based colours). 40 year guarantees are available providing application is channelled through an approved network of applicators and regular maintenance is adhered to (typically once every 18 months). In summary, powder coated aluminium
offers a strong value proposition to all those involved in the design, fabrication and installation of external facades. The ability to closely mimic natural materials and develop flexible panel designs opens up a wide range of possibilities. A growing number of residential and commercial developments have already reaped the benefits, and with this, a new stone age is dawning.
www.interpon.com/gb
Image credit: Metalline
ADF SEPTEMBER 2021
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
