Standard fire risk assessment guidance was not written with composite panel buildings in mind. The specific risks - rapid fire spread through combustible cores, compromised compartmentation, and suppression system limitations - require a targeted approach.
Back to Knowledge BaseA standard fire risk assessment for a composite panel building will identify obvious ignition sources, review escape routes, and check that detection and suppression systems are in place. What it will rarely do is establish what is inside the panels, whether the fire compartmentation is intact, or whether the suppression system is effective against the specific fire risks that composite panel cores present.
These are not minor omissions. They are the gaps that determine whether a fire in a composite panel building remains manageable or becomes catastrophic.
Panel Check has witnessed the aftermath of fires in panel buildings for over three decades. The pattern is consistent: fires that became serious typically involved combustible foam cores that were either unknown to the building owner or known but not factored into the fire risk strategy. Sprinkler systems – while valuable – are not always effective against fires that propagate inside the panel voids before breaking out, or that produce such intense heat and toxic smoke that suppression is overwhelmed.
Composite panels with PIR, PUR or EPS cores present three specific fire risks that standard guidance does not adequately address.
The first is concealed fire spread. Fire can travel inside the panel between the two metal faces – invisible and inaccessible – before it breaks out elsewhere in the building. By the time it becomes visible, the fire may have spread far beyond the point of origin.
The second is core collapse. When the foam core ignites, it degrades rapidly, removing the structural support from the metal faces. Panels can collapse suddenly, creating openings that allow fire to spread to adjacent areas and posing a direct risk to anyone attempting to fight the fire or escape.
The third is smoke toxicity. Burning foam cores – particularly PUR – produce hydrogen cyanide and other highly toxic gases. The toxic smoke dose in a panel fire can become lethal much faster than in a conventional building fire. This directly affects the time available for safe evacuation and emergency service response.
Fire compartmentation is the primary means of controlling fire spread in composite panel buildings. A correctly specified and installed compartment wall or ceiling – using mineral wool or approved PIR panels installed in accordance with tested details – can contain a fire and limit loss. A compromised compartment wall provides little effective resistance.
The problem is that compartmentation is routinely damaged over the life of a building. Services penetrations – pipes, cables, ductwork – are often made without proper fire stopping. Building modifications remove or alter compartment elements. Maintenance works create openings that are not reinstated correctly. This is not always visible from a walkround survey.
Panel Check’s compartmentation surveys systematically inspect and record the condition of every compartment boundary in a building, identifying breaches and advising on remediation. This is not a fire risk assessment – it is a fabric assessment that provides the detailed information that fire risk assessors and insurers need but cannot generate themselves.
An effective fire safety strategy for a composite panel building starts with knowing what you have. Panel type identification, compartmentation survey and condition assessment provide the foundation. From that foundation, a risk-proportionate strategy can be developed: priority remediation of the highest-risk findings, a programme for addressing other issues, regular monitoring, and structured engagement with insurers based on verified data rather than self-certification.
Panel Check supports every stage of that process – from initial identification through to remediation design, procurement and project management. We also work directly with insurers and brokers to present findings and agree on appropriate coverage terms.
Beyond the structural and fabric considerations, there are specific operational practices that significantly affect fire risk in composite panel buildings.
Hot works management is the most critical. Welding, cutting and grinding operations adjacent to or through composite panels are a leading cause of panel fires. An effective hot works permit system requires the permit issuer to know the specific panel types present in the work area – including whether they are LPS-approved and what core material they contain. Method statements must be based on this specific knowledge. A generic hot works permit that does not reference panel type is of limited value in a composite panel building.
Maintenance of fire compartmentation is the second critical practice. Every time a penetration is made through a compartment wall or ceiling for services, the fire stopping must be reinstated to the required standard. In practice, this is frequently overlooked – cables are run through holes that are left open, pipe sleeves are left unsealed, and access panels are left unsealed after maintenance visits. Panel Check compartmentation surveys routinely find dozens of these breaches in buildings where the compartmentation strategy was correctly specified at the time of construction.
Finally, regular inspection of panel condition – particularly joint sealants, fixings and areas subject to mechanical damage – allows deterioration to be identified and rectified before it creates a fire risk. Panel Check recommends a structured inspection programme with defined inspection frequencies appropriate to the risk level of the building.
These operational practices, combined with correct panel specification and installation, provide the integrated approach to composite panel fire safety that the risk demands.