Up to spec

WHEN YOU specify a product or a system for a given project, you expect that it will perform in accordance with the claims made in the marketing and promotional materials, as well as meet the requirements of current regulations. However, if the product or system performance claims have been misinterpreted or are otherwise misleading, it’s likely the building will fall short of its aims and, possibly, even fail to comply.

At best, this will incur additional costs to put the situation right. At worst, inappropriate product selection can severely compromise a building’s safety and longevity with potentially devastating consequences.

What challenges do engineers and specifiers face when selecting products? Misunderstood or misrepresented product performance claims are one of the biggest risks to specifiers. Overstating product performance through generalising product categories under specific approvals is one particular risk area that requires manufacturers to act with integrity, pinpointing approved products where the accredited performance applies to only part of their range.

This is a common issue, notably so in countries and regions where there are less stringent or consistent standards and testing requirements in place. It’s not easy to recognise as it takes some knowledge of how these tests are transacted to understand where the performance values have come from and which ones are to be used. This makes it increasingly difficult for specifiers to decipher performance claims accurately. A complex issue amid the landscape of evolving regulation and guidance around the fire safety of façades in the UK.

Regulations and guidance

In recent years, the regulatory requirements around fire safety for façades have come under intense scrutiny, duly resulting in several significant changes. In the UK, this has been driven in the main by Dame Judith Hackitt’s influential ‘Building a Safer Future’ report that sets out clear recommendations around crucial factors such as product performance, competency and traceability through what’s termed ‘The Golden Thread’.

The report has encouraged each of the UK home nations to review their Building Regulations, standards and supporting guidance. In England, changes to Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations 2010: Materials and Workmanship came into force on 21 December 2018 and restrict the types of materials that can be used for ‘relevant buildings’. Relevant buildings are currently defined as those with a storey at least 18 metres above ground level (not including roof-top plant areas or any storey consisting exclusively of Plant Rooms), which contain one or more dwellings, an institution or a room for residential purposes. This encompasses sheltered housing, student accommodation, care homes, hospitals and boarding school dormitories, but not hotels, hostels and boarding houses.

It requires the external walls of relevant buildings to only be constructed with materials achieving a European Class A1 or A2-s1, d0 in accordance with BS EN 13501-1:2007+A1:2009. This includes window spandrel panels and infill panels and any ‘specified attachments’ attached to an external wall such as balconies, devices for reducing heat gain and solar panels.

However, there’s a long list of exemptions to this rule, including intumescent and fire stopping materials ‘where the inclusion of the materials is necessary to meet the requirements of Part B of Schedule 1’. Here’s a classic example of where manufacturers need to be clear about product performance, and where it sits within these stringent requirements, and particularly so for those products falling within the exempted list which may demand reference to a different set of standards to demonstrate their suitability for the application.

It’s important to note that BS 8414 testing in accordance with the requirements of BR 135 is acceptable as an alternative route to compliance for non-relevant buildings over 18 metres tall. This large-scale system test arguably presents a far more accurate picture of how products will perform in situ as the interaction between the different components and elements such as the size of a ventilation gap have a significant impact on overall performance. Only the precise tested specification can be considered to be compliant if this route is used.

Rest of the picture

The picture is similar in Wales. On 19 December 2019, the Welsh Government introduced a ban on combustible materials on relevant buildings applicable from 13 January 2020. The requirement is that “all materials which become part of an external wall or specified attachment achieve a minimum European Class A2-s1, d0 or Class A1 when classified in accordance with BS EN 13501 -1:2018.” As in England, intumescent and fire stopping materials are exempt.

The Scottish regulations differ, requiring all buildings with a storey at a height of more than 11 metres – and certain assembly, entertainment, hospital and residential care buildings below 11 metres (under Clause 2.7.1) – to use only materials which achieve an A1 or A2 Euroclass rating (note that there’s no requirement for the A2 rating to also have -s1, d0). All references to British Standards-centric reactions to fire tests have been removed. Guidance is set out in Section 2 of the Technical Handbook. This guidance was updated in July 2019 and came into force from 1 October that year. Additional updates were brought forward in April 2021, while further consultation was pending in June.

Another significant difference is that Scotland has maintained the BS 8414 test in accordance with BR 135 as an alternative route to compliance for all buildings, as well as the recently published extended application standard BS 9414, which will allow strictly limited changes to a BS 8414-tested system where the changes will provide a known higher level of performance. 

As of 1 April this year, these are no longer cited within the technical guidance document. However, they’re still permissible as a route to compliance subject to notification of this intent being sent to the Building Standards Division as part of an application for a building warrant.

For their part, the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland are currently consulting about what changes they’re going to make, with indications that the nation may well follow a similar route to England and Wales.

All of these changes, with their clear focus on ensuring product performance levels and appropriate testing, mean that anyone specifying fire safety products must not only keep abreast of any further alterations or updated guidance, but must also be able to confirm and prove the appropriateness of their specifications. This is a process that will be much more straightforward to handle with clear and correct product information to hand.

Accuracy of information

Understanding how product performance should be measured and how a product should work can make it easier to spot inconsistencies and ensure that the correct test standards have been used. Attending product-specific talks or Continuing Professional Development sessions is one way to develop this knowledge and keep up-to-date with any technical advancements.

Any fire performance claims manufacturers make about products should also always be backed up with clear, up-to-date testing data and third party certification, including details of any involvement with any large-scale tests. This detail should be made easily accessible on manufacturers’ websites or on request from their technical team.

Independent, area-specific consultants can also be a useful resource. They can be hired to help check and confirm that any specification details are as accurate and reliable as possible. These consultants will have an in-depth knowledge of the products, their requirements and how they’re tested, whether in relation to fire, acoustics or other key building performance areas. Many manufacturers also offer technical design support and should be able to provide clear and honest guidance on which products would meet the requirements for a specific project.

While there are steps specifiers can take to verify manufacturers’ claims, the onus is, of course, on the people who create the product data in the first place not to mislead. Working with manufacturers who are openly committed to accurate and transparent product testing and marketing can provide assurance that their solutions will perform as advertised.

How do you know if manufacturers are committed to product integrity? There’s a clear and urgent need for greater transparency in the construction product market. While many have been championing this approach for decades, taking steps to ensure their product data files are as comprehensive and transparent as possible, there’s much more work to be done to ensure this approach is replicated across businesses and the industry as a whole.

One of the ways this is being driven at scale is through the Code for Construction Product Information that’s due to launch later this year. Developed by the Construction Product Association’s Marketing Integrity Group, the document will provide a benchmark for how product information is created, presented and marketed by construction product manufacturers. It comprises 11 key clauses which have been designed to ensure product data is clear, accurate, up-to-date, accessible and unambiguous. This will allow everyone involved in specification and procurement to start from a level playing field, ensuring the products they choose are not only appropriate for the job in hand, but have been subject to the appropriate tests and verifications.

Looking beyond specification

There are also other ways in which manufacturers can support better product performance in use. Technical services teams not only offer guidance on the best solutions for a project or to overcome an issue at the design stage, but can also provide valuable support to construction teams.

Even the best product’s performance can be undermined by poor installation. Manufacturers that offer site services can help to ensure correct installation through training, assessment and auditing. This support can also reduce the risk of contracting teams changing the specification to products with which they’re more familiar, but which may not meet the project’s performance targets.

Further, proper auditing and reporting of installations can help to ensure that the product information and any inspection reports are then passed on to the building owner or operator upon completion, in turn ensuring that they hold an accurate record of what has been installed at their building and maintaining ‘The Golden Thread’.

With so many products on the market, selecting the right ones can be a complicated task. Partnering with manufacturers who are committed to standing by the side of specifiers, sharing clear product information and testing data and providing comprehensive project support will assist in making certain that every building project is able to move forward with confidence.

Graham Laws is Technical Director at Siderise Insulation Limited (www.siderise.com)