INSU LATION - Metsec Sotech and Kingspan Kooltherm K15 BS 8414-2 Test Analysis - Executive Summary

Sep 10, 2026

Upload by Asher

Executive summary of a BS 8414-2-A test on a 9m high corner facade using a 3MW timber crib to simulate flashover from a developed room fire. The report sets failure criteria based on three thermocouples exceeding 600°C in line with BR 135, summarizes construction layers, witnesses, and timing changes, and explains breach of the top cavity barrier at 17 minutes. It discusses reasons for failure related to phenolic behavior, BRE comments, and proposed actions for future tests to improve performance.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages39

Reading Time1 h 38 min

AccessFree to download

Executive Summary

Test Method and Criteria

Construction Details

Results and Failure Analysis

BRE Comments and Future Testing Options

# INSU LATION Kingspan Insulation LtdPembridgeLeominsterHerefordshireHR69LA STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL # Metsec Sotech and Kingspan Kooltherm K15 BS8414-2 Test AnalysisEXECUTIVE SUMMARY VERSION Test Date:Friday 14,17ʰ,20ᵗhDecember 2007 Report Date:07 January 08 Proiect number:IJM00371 Prepared on behalf of Kingspan Insulation Ltd by 万 Signature Name lvor Meredith Position Technical Project Manager Date 07/01/08 Executive Summary Test Method:BS 8414-2-A9 metre high corner facade with a 3 mega watt timber cribto simulate a flash over from a developed room fire(refer to section 3 for drawings). Test Criteria:If the 3 thermocouples at the above the top cavity barrier exceed 600degrees this is deemed as a test failure in accordance with BR 135. Project Stakeholders:This project was run jointly between Sotech,Metsec andKingspan with all costs split 3 ways.If it had been successful Sotech would haveincluded it in their LPCB approved redbook listing therefore K15 would have got into theRedbook.Metsec intended to use the data in their BRE Certificate. This information is essential to Kingspan for all facade sales above 18mm throughout theUK and Ireland.Not having evidence that our product performs onto a steel frame iscausing job losses specifically in Scotland on a daily basis(however we are fighting thecase for each project with the BS 8414-1(onto masonry)test data performed in 2005. Test Date:Originally the 14”of December then it moved to the 17"and then at the lastminute they switched it to the 20"December.I was on Holiday from the 15"and MarkSwift was to attend on the 17"however he did not make the 20"but we will soon havethe DVD of the test and we performed a full discetion on Tuesday so are happy that weknow exactly what happened. Test Witnesses;John Egginton Sotech,James Gallear Metsec,Tony Baker LPCB,Sarah ColwellBRE,Phil Clark BRE Construction from inside to out 12.5mm fireline 12.5mm Gyproc Wallboard150 Metsec Steel Frame System Promat HD 9mm Calcium Silicate sheathingK15100mm new technologyEurofox rails and brackets 20mm Cladding Zone/Ventilated airgap AIM fire break packed full of strip and gun grade intumescentSotech 1.5mm Alumininium Cassette Rainscreen Cladding Result: By 17minutes the top fire barrier had breached and the raging inferno moved up to thetop thermocouples and pushed them past 600 degrees thus failing the simple criteria ofBR 135 BS 8414-2 does not have a pass or fail it needs to be cross referenced with BR 135. MPR/1[ ] Sinicty Confidential MSK BS 8414-2 Kingspan Intemai Test repor The Phenolicwas burning on its own steam and the BRE had toexstinguisn the testeariy because it was endangering seting fre to the laboratory. Why cid it fai. The new technology Phenolic is very different in a fre situation to the previoustechnology which has passed several similar tests.The old technology wouid turn into alight ash and fal away leaving to substance to feed the fire.Please refer to Archive testpictures 47 and 48 which ciearly shows this. The Phenolic burnt very ferociously and gave the top cavity barriera serious hammering.t did however hoid out and there wasa s chance that it may have neld out longenough for the crib to start buning down and then this test would have heen successful. What couid be done in a future test to icrease the chance of success. The BRE made us move the fire bariers up half ametre because they couldn't be fitedwhere they were inout 2005 test.Theextra half a metre of burning phenolic outside ofthe main cone of the crib flame may have been enough to cause the too cavity barer tobreach pror to the burn down of the tmber crib Perhaps a better fire barrier would have improved the situation however this one wasfairly robust Perforations in the Phenolic foi facers have caused a reducton in the Euroclass whentested in the SBI,Loss of the perfoations may help? in al honesty from wnat I have seen the way the phenolic

FAQs

What were the test method and main failure criterion in this BS 8414-2 analysis?

The test used a 9m high corner facade with a 3MW timber crib to simulate flashover from a developed room fire. Failure was deemed when the three thermocouples above the top cavity barrier exceeded 600°C in accordance with BR 135.

What construction build-up was used from inside to outside?

From inside: 12.5mm fireline, 12.5mm Gyproc wallboard, a 150 Metsec steel frame system, Promat HD 9mm calcium silicate sheathing, K15, 100mm new technology Eurofox rails and brackets, then a 20mm cladding zone/ventilated air gap with AIMG fire break and Sotech 1.5mm aluminium cassette rainscreen cladding.

Why did the test fail and what changes were considered for future success?

The phenolic burned very ferociously, hammering the top cavity barrier, which breached when thermocouples were pushed past 600°C. Suggested improvements included relocating or modifying fire barriers (e.g., extra half-metre effect), adding a fire retardant, reassessing perforations and edge sealing, and running follow-up tests with different insulation such as Rockwool duoslab.

Sep 10, 2026

Upload by Asher