Smoke toxicity of rainscreen façades.

The toxic smoke production of four rainscreen façade systems were compared during large-scale fire performance testing on a reduced height BS 8414 test wall. Systems comprising 'non-combustible' aluminium composite material (ACM) with polyisocyanurate (PIR), phenolic foam (PF) and stone wool (SW) insulation, and polyethylene-filled ACM with PIR insulation were tested. Smoke toxicity was measured by sampling gases at two points - the exhaust duct of the main test room and an additional 'kitchen vent', which connects the rainscreen cavity to an occupied area. Although the toxicity of the smoke was similar for the three insulation products with non-combustible ACM, the toxicity of the smoke flowing from the burning cavity through the kitchen vent was greater by factors of 40 and 17 for PIR and PF insulation respectively, when compared to SW. Occupants sheltering in a room connected to the vent are predicted to collapse, and then inhale a lethal concentration of asphyxiant gases. This is the first report quantifying fire conditions within the cavity and assessing smoke toxicity within a rainscreen façade cavity.

Burning behaviour of rainscreen façades.

Four reduced-height (5 m) BS 8414-1 façade flammability tests were conducted, three having mineral-filled aluminium composite material (ACM-A2) with polyisocyanurate (PIR) and phenolic (PF) foam and stone wool (SW) insulation, the fourth having polyethylene-filled ACM (ACM-PE) with PIR insulation. Each façade was constructed from a commercial façade engineer's design, and built by practising façade installers. The ACM-PE/PIR façade burnt so ferociously it was extinguished after 13.5 min, for safety. The three ACM-A2 cladding panels lost their structural integrity, and melted away from the test wall, whereupon around 40% of both the combustible PIR and PF insulation burnt and contributed to the fire spread. This demonstrates why all façade products must be non-combustible, not just the outer panels. For the three ACM-A2 tests, while the temperature in front of the cavity was independent of the insulation, the temperatures within it varied greatly, depending on the insulation. The system using PF/A2 allowed fire to break through to the cavity first, as seen by a sharp increase in temperature after 17 min. For PIR/A2, the temperature increased sharply at 22 minutes, as the panel started to fall away from the wall. For SW/A2, no rapid temperature rise was observed.