Abstract. During the 90ies, ISO TC92 SC1 started the development of full-scale tests for facades based upon an international review. The work resulted in two standards namely ISO 13785 part 1 and part 2. The work was performed in WG7 and a substantial input from international experts was given. The paper gives a short historical update on the development but also includes a short overview of the major type of hazards or risks, which can be identified with respect to façades and how they relate to the façade test standards developed. Finally the two methods are summarised and reference to recent work is given.
BACKGROUNDWithin ISO TC92 SC1 fire development, WG7 deals mainly with full and intermediate reaction to fire tests. After completion of the ISO 9705 room corner test standard [1] in the early 90ies, ISO TC92 SC1 WG7 forwarded a questionnaire towards national member bodies in order to investigate what type of large-scale test needed to be developed after the room corner test. Two areas for further development were clearly indicated: sandwich panels and façades. The WG7 started up a task group to see the possibilities for development of standards in this area. For façades it was decided to develop both a screening method at small level and a large-scale test.After a first screening of available large-scale tests, it was decided to look to three different national test methods being originally from Sweden, Germany and Canada [2][3][4]. The Swedish method SP 105 [4] was developed in the 80ies primarily by Lund University [5][6][7] and later incorporated and further developed in a SP method [8]. The German proposal was mainly based on the research conducted at Leipzig [9], which resulted in a draft German standard available during the 90ies [3]. Also other research was conducted in Germany [10] at that moment. This draft standard [3] has now been further developed in a newer version [11]. It is important to point out that the versions do have different thermal attacks, which is important when comparing the different test standards. The Canadian based on the UL method [2] was also available at that moment. Even that method has been further developed in more recent versions [12]. The major differences in the three methods were items such as fuel for the thermal attack (gas, wood or combustible liquid), level of thermal attack, dimensions and configurations (re-entrant corner or not), possibility for observations, etc. Although that intensive tests and documents were distributed in the WG7 only few information was published in peer review journals or at scientific conferences [13,14]. Finally a more performance-based standard [15] was written having propane as the main ignition source but allowing other fuels such as wood and liquids as long as it could be shown This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.