National Building Code of Canada - Noncombustible Construction vs Insulated Metal Panels

[KB4444]

The question I have is how do you determine if a type of Insulated Metal Panel (IMP) is noncombustible?

In this situation the code requires a building to be of noncombustible construction (for my example NBCC 3.2.2.89). The NBCC definition of noncombustible construction notes by the use of noncombustible materials. The noncombustible definition is a material that meets the criteria of CAN/ULC-S114.

The goal is to find a type of IMP that would meet code, but the issue I find is that IMPs are not covered in CAN/ULC-S114, as it “does not apply to materials with a decorative or protective coating, or impregnation, or built up of laminations of dissimilar materials.” I am not sure where else to look to determine which type of IMP is acceptable.

 

[jayrod12]

Have you reached out to suppliers?

I believe Kingspan has a rated panel that meets the noted ULC, but I'm not 100% sure. I do know that we had to replace some IMPs at a client's business because they weren't appropriately fire rated and the AHJ found out. So rated panels are available.

 

[KB4444]

Just to add to the confusion one supplier stated that S114 does not apply to their panels, and noted as I referenced above from the code, while Kingspan notes online that they have panels that are noncombustible per S114 testing (K-Roc panels).

Just to be clear, this is a separate requirement from fire rating. These panels do not need to be fire rated for my example, I am only required to have noncombustible construction.

 

[lexpatrie]

Well, i guess i'll go there...

I forget, but I think Grenfell towers was technically non combustible, it was just the panels and foam on the exterior that was combustible and not required to be non combustible, plus that genius 2" air gap, also known as a Chimney inside the panels...

 

[Craig_H]

Interesting find with the Kingspan K-roc. As it's filled with mineral wool, I'd be confident saying that's non-combustible.

While it may be possible to argue that an insulated metal panel (with flammable foam inside) is non-combustible because of the steel wrap, I don't see it as following the code intent. The sentence you quote in S114 seems to confirm that (I read it to say "ignore the decorative skin, the base material is what counts") As soon as the panel is damaged (through fire or otherwise), the foam is exposed and you quickly go from non-combustible to inferno.

If you're not entirely bound to IMPs, a wall system similar to ULC W605 would definitely do the trick.

 

[dik]

lex...

"The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was caused by the use of combustible insulation materials, which contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. The insulation used in the tower was a type of polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam, which is known to be highly flammable. This type of insulation was installed on the exterior of the building, where it was exposed to heat and flames, causing it to melt and release toxic gases.

Celotex RS5000 Insulation

The specific type of insulation used in Grenfell Tower was Celotex RS5000, which is a type of PIR foam insulation. This product was certified by the manufacturer as being suitable for use in buildings, but it was later found to be highly combustible and contributed to the rapid spread of the fire.

Kingspan Kooltherm K15 Insulation

Another type of insulation used in Grenfell Tower was Kingspan Kooltherm K15, which is a type of phenolic foam insulation. This product was also found to be highly combustible and was used in the renovation of the tower. The use of this product was criticized for being a potential fire hazard, and it was later banned in the UK."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[lexpatrie]

Was it Sydney Australia fire specialists that had a good report after a major fire down there with similar panels?

Sorry, I don't mean to highjack the thread. I'll pipe down.