Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facade Fire Hazards of Bench-Scale Aluminum Composite Panel with Flame-Retardant Core

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Façade fires in tall buildings are currently occurring more than once a month globally that are responsible for many casualties and billions of dollars in losses. In particular, the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in London with more than 70 fatalities raised the profile of façade fire hazard. This work used well-controlled irradiation up to 60 kW/m2 to re-assess the fire hazard of typical flame-retardant aluminum composite panels (ACPs) with a dimension of 10 cm × 10 cm × 0.5 cm. We found that the vertically oriented ACPs with the “non-combustible” A2-grade and “limited-combustible” B-grade cores could still be ignited above 35 kW/m2 and 25 kW/m2, after the front aluminum layer peeled off. The peak heat release rate per unit area of these ACPs could be higher than common materials like timber and PVC. Moreover, compared to the B-core panel, the A2-core panel showed a greater fire hazard in terms of a shorter ignition delay time, a higher possibility of the core peel-off, and a longer flaming duration under current test size and fixing condition. Because the ACP is a complex system, its fire hazard is not simply controlled by the core material. The structural failure of ACP in fire, including peel-off, bending, softening and cracking, may further increase the fire hazard depending on the scale effect, boundary and fixing conditions. This research improves our understanding of the systematic fire behaviors of façade panels and helps rethink the fire risk and test methods of the building façade.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Flammable generally means that the material can support a flaming fire.

  2. The test standard does not explicitly define what are “non-combustible,” “limited combustible,” “flammable” etc., but these simple terminologies are widely interpreted and used in the market, sometimes in a wrong way.

References

  1. Knaack U, Klein T, Bilow M, Auer T (2014) Façades: principles of construction. Birkhäuser, Basel

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Srivastava G, Nakrani D, Ghoroi C (2020) Performance of combustible facade systems with glass ACP and firestops in Full-scale real fire experiments. Fire Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00943-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hajduković M, Knez N, Knez F, Kolšek J (2017) Fire performance of external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) facades with expanded polystyrene (EPS) insulation and thin rendering. Fire Technol 53:173–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hidalgo JP, McLaggan MS, Osorio AF et al (2019) Protocols for the Material Library of Cladding Materials—Part I: Framework. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland

  5. McLaggan MS, Hidalgo JP, Osorio AF et al (2019) Protocols for the Material Library of Cladding Materials—Part II: Sample preparation and testing methodologies. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland

  6. Heitzmann M, McLaggan MS, Hidalgo JP et al (2019) Protocols for the Material Library of Cladding Materials—Part III: Sensitivity studies. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland

  7. Hidalgo JP, McLaggan MS, Osorio AF et al (2019) Protocols for the Material Library of Cladding Materials—Part IV: Use and interpretation. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland

  8. McLaggan MS, Hidalgo JP, Carrascal J et al (2020) Flammability trends for a comprehensive array of cladding materials. Fire Saf J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nishio Y, Yoshioka H, Noguchi T et al (2016) Fire spread caused by combustible facades in Japan. Fire Technol 52:1081–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0535-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonner M, Rein G (2018) Flammability and multi-objective performance of building façades: Towards optimum design. Int J High-Rise Build 7:363–374. https://doi.org/10.21022/IJHRB.2018.7.4.363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bo T, Chen Y, Chun A, et al (2019) Safety awareness of firefighters and their perception of fire risks in cladding fires. In: AFAC19 powered by INTERSCHUTZ—Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Research Forum. Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, pp. 93–102

  12. Sun X, Hu L, Yang Y et al (2020) Evolutions of gas temperature inside fire compartment and external facade flame height with a casement window. J Hazard Mater 381:120913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulz J, Kent D, Crimi T et al (2020) A Critical Appraisal of the UK’s regulatory regime for combustible façades. Fire Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00993-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Torero JL (2018) Grenfell Tower: Phase 1 Report. Grenfell Tower Inquiry

  15. Bisby L (2018) Phase 1—Final Expert Report. Grenfell Tower Inquiry

  16. Purser D Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry. In: 2018. https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/hearings/expert-evidence-professor-purser. Accessed 29 Nov 2018

  17. McKenna ST, Jones N, Peck G et al (2019) Fire behaviour of modern façade materials—Understanding the Grenfell Tower fire. J Hazard Mater 368:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. BRE Global Ltd (2020) Fire Performance of Cladding Materials Research. MHCLG Fire Performance of Cladding Materials Research: Final Report 1–14

  19. Anderson J, Boström L, Chiva R et al (2020) European approach to assess the fire performance of façades. Fire Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. EN-13823:2010+A1: 2014 (2014) Reaction to fire tests for building products—Building products excluding floorings exposed to the thermal attack by a single burning item. European Committee for Standardization

  21. DIN:4102–1 (1998) Fire behaviour of building materials and elements, Part 1: Classification of building materials Requirements and testing. Building and Civil Engineering Standards Committee

  22. Boström L, Hofmann-Böllinghaus A, Colwell S, et al (2018) Development of a European approach to assess the fire performance of facades. European Commission

  23. Grayson S (2018) Letter to fire journal editors on materials identification in comparison of results among fire scaling and flammability studies. Fire Mater 42:581–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ren F, Hu L, Sun X (2019) Experimental investigation on lateral temperature profile of window-ejected facade fire plume with ambient wind. Fire Technol 55:903–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0809-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Koohkan M, Dréan V, Girardin B et al (2020) Reconstruction of the grenfell tower fire—thermomechanical analysis of window failure during the grenfell tower disaster. Fire Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00980-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nam S, Bill RG (2009) A new intermediate-scale fire test for evaluating building material flammability. J Fire Prot Eng 19:157–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042391508101994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Agarwal G (2017) Evaluation of the Fire Performance of Aluminum Composite Material (ACM) Assemblies using ANSI/FM 4880

  28. White N, Delichatsios M, Ahrens M, Kimball A (2013) Fire hazards of exterior wall assemblies containing combustible components. MATEC Web Confer. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20130902005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huang X (2018) Critical drip size and blue flame shedding of dripping ignition in fire. Sci Rep 8:16528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34620-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sun P, Lin S, Huang X (2020) Ignition of thin fuel by thermoplastic drips: an experimental study for the dripping ignition theory. Fire Saf J 115:103006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Guillaume E, Fateh T, Dréan V et al (2019) Reconstruction of Grenfell Tower fire Part 1: lessons from observations and determination of work hypotheses. Fire Materi. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Guillaume E, Dréan V, Girardin B et al (2019) Reconstruction of Grenfell Tower fire. Part 2: a numerical investigation of the fire propagation and behaviour from the initial apartment to the façade. Fire Mater fam. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Guillaume E, Dréan V, Girardin B et al (2019) Reconstruction of Grenfell Tower fire Part 3—numerical simulation of the Grenfell Tower disaster: contribution to the understanding of the fire propagation and behaviour during the vertical fire spread. Fire Mater fam. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chen T, Yuen A, Yeoh G et al (2019) Fire risk assessment of combustible exterior cladding using a collective numerical database. Fire 2:11. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire2010011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Herzog T, Krippner R, Lang W (2012) Facade construction manual. Walter de Gruyter

  36. Giunta d’Albani AW, de Kluiver LL, de Korte ACJ et al (2017) Mass loss and flammability of insulation materials used in sandwich panels during the pre-flashover phase of fire. Fire Mater 41:779–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Collier PCR, Baker GB (2013) The influence of construction detailing on the fire performance of polystyrene insulated panels. Fire Technol 49:195–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-011-0238-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Crewe RJ, Hidalgo JP, Sørensen MX et al (2018) Fire Performance of sandwich panels in a modified ISO 13784-1 small room test: the influence of increased fire load for different insulation materials. Fire Technol 54:819–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-018-0703-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Morikawa T, Yanai E, Okada T et al (1993) Toxic gases from house fires involving natural and synthetic polymers under various conditions. Fire Saf J 20:257–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-7112(93)90047-T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Čolić A, Pečur IB (2020) Influence of Horizontal and Vertical Barriers on Fire Development for Ventilated Façades. Fire Technol 56:1725–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00950-w

  41. EN-13501 (2009) Fire classification of construction products and building elements. European Commission

  42. Sandak A, Sandak J, Brzezicki M, Kutnar A (2019) Portfolio of Bio-Based Façade Materials. In: Bio-based Building Skin. Springer, Singapore, pp 155–177

  43. Babrauskas V (2017) Engineering variables to replace the concept of ‘noncombustibility.’ Fire Technol 53:353–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0570-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Babrauskas V (2016) The Cone Calorimeter. In: Hurley M (ed) SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. Springer, London, pp 952–980

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Quintiere JG, Harkleroad MF (1984) New concepts for measuring flame spread properties. In: Fire Safety: Science and Engineering. ASTM International

  46. Quintiere JG (2006) Fundamental of fire phenomena. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Hidalgo JP, Torero JL, Welch S (2017) Experimental characterisation of the fire behaviour of thermal insulation materials for a performance-based design methodology. Fire Technol 53:1201–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0625-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Simms DL (1963) On the pilot ignition of wood by radiation. Combust Flame 7:253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(63)90190-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Drysdale D (2011) An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, vol 3. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Luche J, Rogaume T, Richard F, Guillaume E (2011) Characterization of thermal properties and analysis of combustion behavior of PMMA in a cone calorimeter. Fire Saf J 46:451–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2011.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Spearpoint MJ (1999) Predicting the ignition and burning rate of wood in the cone calorimeter using an integral model. University of Maryland, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gollner MJ, Miller CH, Tang W, Singh AV (2017) The effect of flow and geometry on concurrent flame spread. Fire Saf J 91:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Babrauskas V, Peacock DR (1992) Heat release rate: the single most important parameter in fire hazard. Fire Saf J 18:255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Huggett C (1980) Estimation of rate of heat release by means of oxygen consumption measurements. Fire Mater 4:61–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.810040202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Krämer RH, Zammarano M, Linteris GT et al (2010) Heat release and structural collapse of flexible polyurethane foam. Polym Degrad Stab 95:1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.02.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lin S, Sun P, Huang X (2019) Can peat soil support a flaming wildfire? Int J Wildland Fire 28:601–613. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF19018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chung YJ, Spearpoint M (2008) Combustion properties of native Korean wood species. Int J Eng Perform Based Fire Codes 9:118–125

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zhou X, Pizzi A, Sauget A et al (2013) Lightweight tannin foam/composites sandwich panels and the coldset tannin adhesive to assemble them. Ind Crops Prod 43:255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.07.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ferdous W, Manalo A, Aravinthan T (2017) Bond behaviour of composite sandwich panel and epoxy polymer matrix: Taguchi design of experiments and theoretical predictions. Constr Build Mater 145:76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Her SC (1999) Stress analysis of adhesively-bonded lap joints. Compos Struct 47:673–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(00)00052-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Vekhter I, Varma CM (2003) Proposal to determine the spectrum of pairing glue in high-temperature superconductors. Phys Rev Lett 90:4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.237003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Banea MD, Da Silva LFM, Campilho RDSG (2012) Effect of temperature on tensile strength and mode i fracture toughness of a high temperature epoxy adhesive. J Adhes Sci Technol 26:939–953. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856111X593649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Goudarzi M, Ghanbari D, Salavati-Niasari M, Ahmadi A (2016) Synthesis and characterization of Al(OH)3, Al2O3 nanoparticles and polymeric nanocomposites. J Cluster Sci 27:25–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10876-015-0895-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Alavi MA, Morsali A (2010) Syntheses and characterization of Mg(OH)2 and MgO nanostructures by ultrasonic method. Ultrason Sonochem 17:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.08.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bourbigot S, Duquesne S (2007) Fire retardant polymers: Recent developments and opportunities. J Mater Chem 17:2283–2300. https://doi.org/10.1039/b702511d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kobayashi Y, Huang X, Nakaya S et al (2017) Flame spread over horizontal and vertical wires: the role of dripping and core. Fire Saf J 91:112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.03.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Li K, Mousavi M, Hostikka S (2017) Char cracking of medium density fibreboard due to thermal shock effect induced pyrolysis shrinkage. Fire Saf J 91:165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.04.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Li K, Hostikka S, Dai P et al (2017) Charring shrinkage and cracking of fir during pyrolysis in an inert atmosphere and at different ambient pressures. Proc Combust Inst 36:3185–3194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Cooke GME (1987) The structural response of steel I-section members subject to elevated temperature gradients across the section. City University, London

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wang S, Ding P, Lin S et al (2020) Deformation of wood slice in fire: Interactions between heterogeneous chemistry and thermomechanical stress. Proc Combust Inst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.08.060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Innes A, Innes J (2011) Flame Retardants. In: Applied Plastics Engineering Handboo. William Andrew Publishing, pp 469–485

  72. Kumar S, Singh RK (2013) Thermolysis of high-density polyethylene to petroleum products. J Petrol Eng 2013:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/987568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Bilton M, Brown AP, Milne SJ (2012) Investigating the optimum conditions for the formation of calcium oxide, used for CO2 sequestration, by thermal decomposition of calcium acetate. J Phys Conf Ser. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/371/1/012075

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51876183) and Hong Kong Polytechnic University Emerging Frontier Area (EFA) Scheme of RISUD (P0013879). The authors thank Prof. Jose Torero (University College London) for inspiring this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

    Aatif Ali Khan, Shaorun Lin, Xinyan Huang & Asif Usmani

  2. Research Institute for Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

    Aatif Ali Khan

  3. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    Shaorun Lin

Authors
  1. Aatif Ali Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaorun Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xinyan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Asif Usmani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shaorun Lin or Xinyan Huang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary material 1 (AVI 5707 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (AVI 8256 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (AVI 7517 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (AVI 6063 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

There are various standard methods to test cladding materials or metal composite panels are used, e.g. ASTM E-84 in USA with the guidelines of test methods in NFPA 285 and BS 8414-1 in the UK, as listed in Table 3

Table 3 Typical Testing Standards and Methods for Cladding Materials or Metal Composite Façade Panels
Full size table

.

Tables 4,5 and 6 list the details of the classification for material in EN 13501-1.

Table 4 Smoke Production Classification in EN 13501-1
Full size table
Table 5 Classification for Flaming Droplet/Particles in EN 13501–1
Full size table
Table 6 Classification for Material
Full size table

Note that these tables only show the grading of materials widely found in marketing literature based on their combustibility and flammability. It is not the authors’ intention to praise or critize any standard test. The authors encourage the readers to refer to the relevant standard and testing methods and check for more details in the references.

The thermal analysis of A2 and B core materials was conducted under argon gas flow at two heating rates of 10 and 20 K/min, respectively. The initial mass for testing was about 10 mg. Figure 8 shows the normalized mass loss and mass-loss rate (%/min) of A2 core and B core varying with temperature.

Figure 8
figure 8

TGA results of (a) A2 core and (b) B core under argon gas flow and heating rates of 10 & 20 K/min

Full size image

For these two panel core materials, there are several local peaks of the mass-loss rate at different temperatures due to the evaporation of glue and the thermal decomposition of Al(OH)3 (180–200°C) [71], Mg(OH)2 (~ 330 °C) [71], PE (~ 370–450 °C) [72], ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA at ~ 350 °C), and CaCO3 (~ 750 °C) [73]. Comparatively, A2 core material has more fire retardants and less flammable PE than the B2 core material. The total mass loss of A2 core (< 40%) is also smaller than that of B core (about 55%). Both material-level aspects suggested that the B core is more flammable than the A2 core.

Based on the principle of oxygen calorimetry, the heat release rate per unit area (HRRPUA) can be calculated to quantify the flame intensity and the fire hazards. Figure 9 shows the HRRPUA evolution of A2-core and B-core ACPs under two different irradiations of 40 kW/m2 and 50 kW/m2, where the ignition and flame extinction moments are highlighted. Once the core material is ignited, the heat release rate dramatically increases and subsequently reaches its peak value. Afterward, the flame intensity gradually decreases and eventually extinguishes after several minutes. Then, the fire is sustained in the form of smoldering combustion until burnout. Compared to A2-core panel, B2-core panel has a larger peak HRRPUA and a longer ignition time, but the flame can sustain for a shorter period (see more detailed comparisons in Fig. 5).

Figure 9
figure 9

Heat release rate evolution of A2-core and B-core panels under two external irradiations of (a) 40 kW/m2 and (b) 50 kW/m2

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, A.A., Lin, S., Huang, X. et al. Facade Fire Hazards of Bench-Scale Aluminum Composite Panel with Flame-Retardant Core. Fire Technol 59, 5–28 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-01089-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-01089-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation