Building codes are constantly evolving, as are the dangers associated with non-compliance. In recent years, high-profile fires in high-rise buildings around the world have prompted regulators to address a fundamental reality: the external materials of our buildings can fuel a fire or help to prevent its spread, and too many developments had been opting for the former.
What Changed and Why it Matters
The fires that led to stricter regulations had one thing in common: external façade systems that had insulation or cladding panels that were easily able to catch fire and let the fire spread rapidly up the buildings’ external walls. Following each of those fires, code-making bodies around the world initiated a complete overhaul of how façade systems are tested, certified, and installed.
For architects and project managers, this is not a report of the past. It is the business environment they are operating in now. Codes are no longer only directed at the structural performance of facades but at the fire performance of the complete façade assembly, the thermal performance of the building envelope, and the traceability of all materials used, from the factory to the construction site. Each of these dimensions presents considerable risk if not managed correctly.
The Insulation Problem Architects Can’t Avoid
Up-to-date codes have strict requirements for thermal performance. For instance, the National Construction Code recently implemented much higher energy efficiency standards, aiming at a 70% energy use reduction in new commercial buildings compared to old standards (Australian Building Codes Board). Achieving this means using well-insulated building envelopes.
Thermal performance vs. fire safety is a false choice. Many insulation products with high thermal performance are also combustible. Unfortunately, driving toward thermal performance targets with cheap, high-performing insulation and assuming fire safety can be managed afterward has inspired the kind of failures regulators are now working to eliminate.
The solution isn’t to prioritize thermal performance over fire safety. It’s to specify façade systems that are tested as complete assemblies, not individual parts. A non-combustible cladding panel used with combustible insulation doesn’t create a compliant façade. The parts must be tested as an assembly, and the test reports must show performance under real-world installation conditions.
This is where external building cladding suppliers who invest in full system testing and provide testing data and certification for the complete assembly prove their worth. A supplier who can hand over complete fire test reports and thermal performance data for an integrated façade assembly removes a significant documentation burden from the design team and reduces your risk for approval.
DTS Versus Performance Solutions, Choosing the Right Compliance Pathway
The majority of building projects are designed using one of two pathways available under the national construction code. The first is the Deemed-to-Satisfy route using pre-approved materials and assemblies that satisfy the code’s functional statements. The second is the Performance Solution route where an engineered design is assessed against the performance objectives described in the code and, where applicable, the Performance Requirements which must be achieved.
Performance Solutions sound appealing, particularly for new and innovative designs where a ‘what you see is what you get’ solution may not be readily available. However, the pathway is the most technically onerous, time-consuming and costly for all parties: the fire engineer and other members of the professional team, product suppliers, and, looking through the lens of the project procurement process, the builder and the building owner. It takes time and money for the fire engineer to prepare suitable reports, documentation, and assembly/product/system specifications for the architect or interior designer to integrate into the documentation. Then, of course, comes the time and cost associated with the regulatory authority reviewing and hopefully approving the approach.
Material Traceability Isn’t Optional Anymore
One of the compliance shifts that aren’t as widely talked about is the growing emphasis on chain of custody, the paper trail that proves the materials going onto a building are the ones that were specified and tested. Substitution of materials during a build, whether to save money or due to a supply shortage, now poses serious legal risk.
Architects and project managers must start treating material specifications as a legally binding technical document, not a suggestion. If a substitution must happen, then it must be evaluated formally, not slipped through quietly. Façade engineering is one area where the ‘gap’ between the specified product and the installed product has a troubled history, and the authorities have seen fit to turn that ‘gap’ into a liability.
Recladding Projects: Where the Risk is Highest
Buildings that are already constructed have the highest risk of non-compliance given they are not subject to current-day building regulations. Cladding safety audits have found many thousands of buildings across multiple jurisdictions clad in materials that likely wouldn’t pass today’s compliance requirements.
Upon determining the materials present on a building (such as the product type, type of insulation layer, and fixing system) they must be tested to assess their non-combustibility against the appropriate exemplar materials referenced in internationally accepted combustibility testing standards (e.g. AS 1530.1).
Samples of existing materials would need to be taken from a building and tested to assess the rate and extent to which the materials contribute to the growth of a fire. There are also several relevant international standards that can provide guidance on how to test and classify building products for their combustibility as well as measure their heat and smoke release.
Compliance as a Design Input, Not a Constraint
The most successful architects and project managers handle this environment by regarding code requirements as inputs to the design process rather than as filters that are applied at the end. Knowing early what your façade system’s fire performance and thermal requirements are means you can make material selections in the concept phase that will hold through documentation, approval, and construction.
This is not limiting. It’s simply how you avoid the delays, redesigns, and liability that come from treating compliance as someone else’s problem until it becomes everyone’s problem.
