Disgraceful mis-selling of foam fillers

[Clevelandfire 3]

Thats half the trouble Dr Wiz.

On the tin it just says its fire resisting gap filler capable of up to 2 hours fire protection.  It refers you to the data sheet which makes very little reference to the degree of fire resistance achieved, this just says it can be used to fill gaps up to 50mm. However the data sheet does not describe the necessary method  or that other products are needed in addition to the foam to fill 50mm gaps sucessfully.
It is necessary to download and carefully read the BS476 test report to understand this. And most builders are unlikely to do that.

This document explains how on the 50mm gap two thirds of the way through the test the foam fell out and burned but the rockwool which had been also stuffed in to the gap first before the test held good. Therefore the combined products were given a two hour test certificate. The manufacturers then claim that the foam can give up to 2 hours fire resistance so everybody who buys it naturally expects that. Thats a potential trades description matter in my opinion.

But then when the most diligent customer emails the manufacturers tech department  he receives an email  in reply saying yes it will be fine on gaps up to 100mm. That goes well beyond trades descriptions into false claims in my opinion. 

why didnt you tell us that in the first place?

[Fishy]

I never specify these (the PU types) because I’ve never seen any fire test evidence that convinces me that they’re useful.  Sealing narrow gaps in thick, dense masonry walls appears to be the limit of their performance.  They also claim that the foam is fire-resisting but when you read some of the reports it was tested applied on top of packed rockwool, which would provide the fire resistance on its own!  The limitations on its performance are not communicated to the customer (whether this is on purpose or not I’d not choose to voice an opinion on, in a public forum).

[Clevelandfire 3]

Well yes.

But I hark back to what Kurnal said originally and he didnt give all the facts. I initially sided with Midland because on the face of it there was hardly anything concrete mentioned to suggest the supplier deliberately mis-sold the product.

Then we get a bit more information which actually suggests they did. So hell yes Im not going to comment either about what went on and who is to blame because we get the story in drips and drabs.

Then Wiz mentions contractoirs dont aklways have time to check on certain products. Well sorry I think they have to. Something as crucial as fire stopping? Does he think a judge and jury would agree? Come on.

[kurnal]

Well C3 this writing stuff is not all that straightforward.

I thought my first posting gave the whole picture in an nutshell but judging from several of your replies it seems that you did not read it in the same way that I wrote it. My problem not yours, but thats why i leave writing books and articles to those with a better eye for accuracy and detail.

[SeaBass]

On a slight aside, Cleveland 3 states that Rockwool alone will provide fire resistance on it's own. IT WON'T.  In order to provide an acceptable degree of fire resistance, high density rock wool needs to be cut to shape, mounted and fixed into the opening, and then sealed with an intumescent paste.   

3M made a video of a fire test which compares openings sealed with Rock wool (a very common practice in France) and properly sealed opening. The difference is significant with the rock wool providing very little if any resistance to the passage of heat smoke and eventually flame.