Fire-Safe Cladding for Infrastructure: What Architects and Contractors Need to Know

Why Fire Safety Standards Are Raising the Bar for Cladding

Public buildings must have façades that can withstand fire without fuelling its spread. Global building regulations, shaped by tragedies like Grenfell Tower [2][7] and the Dubai Marina and Abu Dhabi fires [3], now demand compliance with standards such as NFPA 285, ASTM E84 Class A, and Euroclass A2-s1,d0.

For architects and contractors, fire-safe cladding is not only about inspections. It influences insurance costs, tenant confidence, and long-term maintenance. Non-combustible or limited-combustibility systems, tested as complete façades rather than single materials, are becoming standard practice worldwide.

A review in Construction and Building Materials (Thevega et al., 2022) [1] highlights that fire compliance now relies on standardised testing (ASTM E136, EN 13501-1, BS 8414) and digital fire modelling tools (FDS, PyroSim). These approaches help predict flame spread and smoke behaviour early, reducing physical retesting and favouring mineral-based materials like fibre cement [5].

Why Material Choice Matters for Fire Safety

The façade can either act as a barrier or a conduit. Cladding with high polymer content, such as polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels (ACPs) or glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) panels, can ignite and spread flames vertically.

The 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster, where polyethylene-cored ACM was a major factor, exposed how certain cladding systems can turn an otherwise contained blaze into a catastrophic building-wide event. [2][7]. Similarly, façade fires in Dubai Marina and Abu Dhabi prompted updates to the UAE Fire and Life Safety Code, which is now regarded as one of the most stringent frameworks in the Gulf region [3][8].

These incidents pushed regulators to ban or restrict combustible cladding, especially on buildings over 18 metres or housing vulnerable users. Today, materials with high mineral content, such as fibre cement panels, mineral-core ACM, and solid metals, are the preferred options for infrastructure where fire performance is critical [6].

Fibre Cement vs GFRP: A Fire Performance Comparison

Among non-metallic cladding options, fibre cement panels outperform GFRP panels in fire safety.

Fibre Cement Panels (e.g. EQUITONE)

• Cementitious matrix with cellulose fibres, inherently mineral-based.
• Euroclass A2-s1,d0 under EN 13501-1 (low smoke, no droplets).
• Pass ASTM E136 and ISO 1182 non-combustibility tests.
• Many systems pass BS 8414 and NFPA 285 full-assembly tests [11].
• Low maintenance, 10-year warranty (extendable) and 50+ year lifespan [4].
• Full-scale testing shows fibre cement begins losing load capacity at 300–400 °C but maintains façade integrity significantly longer than many other cladding options [17].

Thevega et al. (2022) [1] note that fibre cement can meet ASTM E136 without additives, while GFRP often fails ignition tests and needs expensive treatments to reach Euroclass B or NFPA 285 [5].

GFRP Panels

• Glass fibres in a polymer resin matrix, inherently combustible.
• Typically only achieves Euroclass B ratings [5].
• Releases toxic smoke and adds to fire load, limiting use to decorative or low-rise structures [6].
• Research confirms that GFRP requires heavy fire-retardant modification to achieve acceptable fire resistance, even in façade-specific testing [18].

While GFRP panels may still be suitable for certain decorative applications or low-rise structures, fibre cement cladding remains the safest material for hospitals, schools, airports, and transit stations, where non-combustibility is essential.

Composite Metal Panels: Lessons From Past Failures

Polyethylene-cored aluminium composite panels (ACPs) have been linked to numerous façade fires worldwide. Polyethylene is highly flammable, often described as “solid gasoline,” and contributes significantly to flame spread [2][7].

Modern regulations now:

• Ban or restrict polyethylene-core ACPs on public or high-rise buildings.
• Require mineral-filled cores (≥70%) or non-combustible materials like solid aluminium or fibre cement [6].
• Mandate NFPA 285 or BS 8414 testing for full façade assemblies [8][9][10].

Thevega et al. (2022) [1] confirm that polymer-rich claddings like PE-cored ACPs contribute disproportionately to fire load and smoke toxicity, raising insurance premiums and risk profiles. Mineral-based alternatives such as fibre cement panels and mineral-core metals not only perform better in ISO 13785-2 and BS 8414 façade tests but can also incorporate recycled content without compromising fire performance, supporting sustainability goals alongside safety [6].

The Global “Gold Standards” for Façade Fire Testing

Four main frameworks guide façade specifications worldwide:

ASTM E84 (UL 723)

• Measures surface flame spread and smoke development [9].
• Class A (Flame Spread Index ≤25) is typically required for materials in public buildings and exit routes [9].
• Widely adopted in the Middle East and Asia as a baseline safety criterion.

NFPA 285

• A full-scale fire propagation test for wall assemblies [8][11].
• Evaluates how flames spread vertically and horizontally when a window fails.
• Mandated in the US, and now in UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia for all high-rise buildings [8][11].
• Systems with fibre cement panels (such as EQUITONE) have passed NFPA 285, even when paired with non-combustible insulation like mineral wool.

EN 13501-1 (Euroclass)

• Europe’s system for reaction-to-fire classification.
• A1 = fully non-combustible; A2-s1,d0 = limited combustibility, low smoke, no droplets.
• Most EU states and the UK require A2-s1,d0 or better for public and tall buildings [10].
• Often combined with BS 8414 testing for system validation.

ASTM E136 / ISO 1182

• Laboratory tests for non-combustibility of individual materials [11].
• Products like fibre cement, metals, and brick that pass are often given automatic approval for use on sensitive building types.

Altogether, these frameworks ensure that façades will not propagate flames and will limit smoke production, even under severe conditions.

Regional Fire Safety Regulations: Converging Standards

Although every region has its own codes, most are now aligned around non-combustible façades and full-scale testing for high-risk projects.

United Kingdom and European Union

• Combustible cladding is banned on new residential towers (over 18 m), hospitals, schools, and care homes [10].

• Only A2-s1,d0 or A1-rated materials are allowed.

• BS 8414 testing is mandatory for many multi-layer façade systems [10].

• Countries like Germany and France had strict rules even before Grenfell; other nations are rapidly catching up.

Middle East (Gulf States)

• The UAE Fire and Life Safety Code now mandates that façades on high-rises be non-combustible or NFPA 285-tested [3][8].

• Dubai authorities require every cladding system to be tested as a complete assembly.

• Saudi Arabia and Qatar have adopted similar rules, effectively eliminating polyethylene-core ACPs [3][8].

• Most projects specify Class A materials (ASTM E84) paired with non-combustible insulation.

Kazakhstan and CIS Countries

• Historically followed Russian GOST standards, which emphasised non-combustibility but not large-scale façade testing.

• Recent updates require non-combustible façades for public and tall buildings and increasingly recognise Euroclass ratings for imported materials [12][13].

Balkans (Serbia, Albania)

• Moving toward EU-aligned codes [14][15].

• Serbia adopted EN 13501-1 in 2019, with A2 as the default requirement for high-rises.

• Albania introduced stronger fire codes around 2020, citing international benchmarks, though enforcement remains uneven.

Asia

• Singapore and Hong Kong mandate non-combustible cladding for tall buildings, using British and now Euroclass standards [16].

• China bans combustible insulation and cladding on high-rises under GB 50016 Fire Code, requiring Class A (equivalent to A2/A1) materials.

• Southeast Asia often references ASTM E84 Class A and NFPA 285 due to the influence of international consultants on infrastructure projects [16].

Africa

• South Africa enforces Class 1 (low flame spread) and non-combustible claddings for high-risk buildings under SANS 10400/10177 [10].

• Other nations reference British or European standards, with major projects often requiring NFPA 285-tested systems to satisfy insurers and financiers.

Beyond Compliance: Sustainability and Digital Tools

The Thevega et al. (2022) review [1] highlights another key shift: combining non-combustible, low-impact materials with digital fire modelling to streamline compliance. Using tools like FDS and PyroSim, architects can test joint layouts, insulation choices, and façade ventilation virtually before construction. Fibre cement panels, with their predictable thermal behaviour and ability to incorporate recycled content, align well with these digital workflows, helping projects achieve both fire safety and sustainability targets without costly redesigns.

Below are three different visualisations of Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) and PyroSim fire simulations, showing how smoke and heat propagate in various scenarios. These images highlight their use in modelling fire spread, ventilation effects, and temperature distributions in built environments.

Key Takeaways for Architects and Contractors

• Use fibre cement, mineral-core ACM, or solid metals meeting Euroclass A2, ASTM E84, and ASTM E136 [4][5]. Avoid polymer-heavy materials on high-risk projects.
• Specify NFPA 285 or BS 8414-tested systems [8][10] for code and insurer approval.
• Understand global code convergence [9][10][16], which simplifies cross-border specifications.
• Engage suppliers early, consult façade engineers, fire specialists, and EQUITONE technical support during design to prevent delays.

For public infrastructure, ventilated fibre cement façade systems (like EQUITONE panels) provide design flexibility, long-term durability, and verified fire safety, meeting the toughest codes without compromising architectural vision.

References:

[1] Thevega, B., et al. (2022). Fire compliance of construction materials for building claddings. Construction and Building Materials, Volume 345. Link

[2] BBC News. (2017). Grenfell Tower fire coverage. Link

[3] The National News. (2021). Dubai fires: How the city improved building safety after a decade of blazes. Link

[4] EQUITONE Official Resources. Technical specifications and certifications. Link

[5] Choosing the Right Fibre-Reinforced Material for Cladding - Shapeshift. Link

[6] EQUITONE Cladding Passes Official Fire Safety Test - Specification Online. Link

[7] Years after Grenfell Tower tragedy, buildings still wrapped in “solid gasoline” - Reuters. Link

[8] Mandatory NFPA 285 Testing Will Make UAE Buildings Fireproof - HSE Review. Link

[9] How Building Codes Around the World Differ in Fire Safety - Tenmat. Link

[10] The Case for a Global Fire Safety Standard - RICS. Link

[11] Tecnalia - Fire Safety of Facades: NFPA 285 Standard. Link

[12] Adopted Technical Regulation on General Fire Safety Requirements - Pravsky. Link

[13] Fire Safety Regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan - CIS Legislation. Link

[14] Serbia Euroclass Adoption - Institut IMS. Link

[15] Albania’s Building Codes and Fire Safety Measures - International Fire & Safety Journal. Link

[16] Fire-Safe Cladding: Building a Culture of Compliance - Asia Pacific Fire Magazine. Link

[17] Reduction of Load Capacity of Fiber Cement Board Facade During Fire Exposure. MDPI Materials, 2020. Link

[18] Experimental and Computational Investigations on Fire Resistance of GFRP Composite for Building Façade. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2014. Link