NEWS FPA research into toxicity of cladding released

RESEARCH FROM the Fire Protection Association (FPA) released ahead of the expected combustible materials ban has called on the government to ‘consider the role that toxicity should play in product approvals’. In the new research, available

online at, the FPA investigates the effects of toxic fumes generated by ‘certain cladding combinations’ in designs ‘still permitted’ by building regulations, as well as the effect this has on those occupying buildings in a fire. The FPA has called on the government to ‘consider the role that toxicity should play in product approvals’ before it makes a final decision on the combustible materials to be banned. The FPA stated in addition that

the report’s ‘initial research’ could ‘assist the government’s decision on the future use of combustible materials in the construction of buildings’, with a key feature of rainscreen cladding being the space formed between insulation and cladding panels. This may contain other materials, including vapour membranes to keep out moisture, and ‘strict rules govern’ how internal walls must contain fire, but ‘the same is not true of the external walls’. Here, there are ‘few requirements

to prevent the spread of flame and heat from outside’, and devices or features such as bathroom and kitchen vents ‘have the potential

to transmit fire and smoke’ from the cladding into the occupied space. The FPA report confirms the ‘potential for serious harm’ to any person exposed to such toxic products in a fire, looking at a typical living room in a building covered in cladding. Findings of the test here

suggested that for some of the compliant combinations of material, once a fire breaks into cladding containing a vent connected to an apartment, those inside are ‘predicted to lose consciousness within ten minutes’, and unless rescued ‘would die within 30 minutes’. The FPA testing, undertaken at its laboratory in Blockley, Gloucestershire, was funded by the UK insurance industry through RISCAuthority, and was assisted by Arup and the University of Central Lancashire. This testing involved a selection of combinations of cladding and insulation ‘legitimately used’ on UK buildings, including similar combinations to those used on Grenfell Tower. Four tests were conducted over four months that compared the potential contribution from smoke toxicity that could be made by the differing configurations. The research has been offered

to both the government and the Grenfell inquiry by the FPA to ‘assist in future discussions on the merits of the specification of non

combustible materials in buildings’, as well as the ‘need to strengthen regulations in respect of fire and smoke ingress’. The FPA added that ‘at the very least’ the research should ‘prompt further research into whether the evaluation of fire toxicity should become an integral part of the building products approval process’.

Dr Jim Glockling, the FPA’s

technical director, commented: ‘Measuring smoke toxicity in building products is currently not a legal requirement. The results of our study show that current regulations may not adequately protect occupants from the potentially toxic fire gases from materials burning on the outside of buildings. Some current common cladding material combinations were shown to present less of a threat than others. There is certainly a need for further study.’ Jonathan O’Neill, FPA managing

director, added: ‘This work reinforces our view that a range of factors, such as measurement of toxic fumes, needs to be considered when choosing building materials, in order to protect buildings and ultimately save lives. The [FPA] wants assurance from government that systems are in place to regularly review building standards to ensure that the UK can never experience a tragedy on the scale we witnessed at Grenfell – on our or any future generation’s watch.’ FEBRUARY 2019 9

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