FIS Head of Technical James Parlour spoke with Peter Gordon, Technical Manager at Rite-Fix, and Michael Curley, Technical Sales Manager at etag, about the importance of best practice and risk management for contractors using fixings.
As building design evolves and safety regulations tighten, ensuring the right fixings for interior finishes has never been more important. The majority of fixing failures that occur on projects are
predominantly down to incorrect fixing selection and installation issues. If the right fixing is selected and installed within the manufacturers guidelines, in conjunction with preliminary (pull-out) and on-site (proof) testing carried out by competent persons, you should be able to eliminate the risk of a fixing failing and negate consequential economic loss, injury and in the worst case, fatalities.
The UK’s Building Safety Act 2022 has transformed contractor responsibilities, placing a greater focus on safety, documentation and accountability. As such many principal contractors are now implementing fixing policies. Many of these are built around BS 8539 (BS 8539:2012+A1:2021) which is the first code of practice for the selection and installation of post-installed anchors in concrete and masonry. The standard is also the framework on which the Building Safety Act is built on in regard to design, selection and installation of fixings.
The main emphasis of this code of practice, is to ensure all stakeholders within the construction process have clear responsibilities and that best practice is driven through competency and traceability. According to BS 8539 where a fixing for an application is specified, that product should be procured and installed in accordance with manufacturers installation guidelines. This fixing can be replaced with an alternative but only in accordance with clause 10 change management, which states “equal and approved anchors can be used with the same parameters”. But a big issue for many in the finishes and interiors sector is that often the fixing system hasn’t been designed by a consultant engineer and it becomes the responsibility of the contractor to “specify” the fixing system.
This is where manufacturers and competent distributors can assist in ensuring the fixing selection is correct for the application and complies with the relevant approvals required. “During my 30-plus years in the technical fixings industry, I have been asked to attend many projects where failures and system collapses have occurred,” says Peter. “There are also many well-documented failures, which have resulted in large consequential losses for contractors – and, unfortunately, some have even resulted in fatalities. In the vast majority of these cases, malfunction of the fixing was not the cause of the problem, instead either the wrong fixing was selected for the type of substrate or there was poor installation practice,” said Peter.
This emphasises the importance of making sure the product you are selecting is correct for the substrate it’s being installed into and that it is installed strictly in line with the manufacturer’s guidelines. Too often installers tend to go with “this is what I’ve always used”, irrespective of whether the product is suitable for that application. It is this sort of bad practice that BS 8539 is looking to eliminate. Within the standard, installers should be trained as competent, and their installation requires signing off by a trained supervisor. Apart from assessing the substrate and the load requirement, there are other criteria that are critical for correct fixing selection. These include relevant approvals for substrate, environment and fire rating as well as compliance of manufacturers recommended spacing, edge distance and minimum embedment depth criteria. BS 8539 stipulates that you should always use a fixing that carries a European Technical
Approval (ETA) where one exists. This means the fixing has been independently tested and the recommended loads verified for the approved substrate. Most manufacturers also provide data sheets showing the fixing suitability, minimum edge and minimum spacing. Also stated is the minimum embedment required to ensure the stated loads are achievable an information showing
the correct tools required to ensure correct installation. These are a great source of information and should be obtained and read prior to any installation.
The importance of testing
In many cases there might be an application where there is no data or approval from manufacturers due to the nature of the substrate. This is often the case with refurbishment of existing buildings, where there is no data available for the existing substrate, or there may be some unusual substrates such as block and beam systems, or hollow pot systems. To ensure the correct
fixing is selected for these applications, it is often necessary to carry out preliminary load testing. This will either take the form of suitability testing, where the applied load for the fixing is known then tested to a set “suitability load”. This ensures the substrate is capable of carrying the weight of the system being fixed.
Sometimes the strength of the substrate needs to be ascertained before a design for the system can be produced. This can be done by carrying out “allowable load testing”. In this scenario the
fixing is tested to destruction, then safety factors are applied, to produce a maximum load that can be applied to the fixing. While the Building Safety Act does not mandate fixing tests, it does require a golden thread of information with detailed records documenting all materials used. To comply with BS 8539, the person carrying out these pull-out tests should be certified as competent.
Currently the accepted measure of competency to carry out this work, is that your tester should be CFA approved, and they carry the CFA accredited card that shows them to be “Advanced Approved”. There is also a card qualifying people to carry out proof testing. This only confirms a competency to test pre-installed anchors which checks the quality of installation. As such testers with this type of card should not be doing tests that ascertain the suitability of a fixing for an application. This type of testing should only occur once the fixing system is deemed suitable after preliminary testing and on the back of the suitability tests and the fixing has already been specified and installed.
Test reports should be produced and submitted explaining the reason for the test, type of fixing tested, loads achieved and the relevant safety factors applied under the CFA guidance note
“Procedure for testing Construction fixings”. This will ensure best practice has been applied during testing and give a traceable thread of evidence regarding the suitability and selection of the installed fixing. The test document can then be added for any threads of information and used as a consultation document if the fixing suitability is questioned. The Construction Fixings Association (CFA) has a register of approved testers1 for both preliminary (pull-out) and on-site (proof) testing. Certified testers carry credentials, conduct detailed site analyses, and produce
a report that assesses a fixing in line with the manufacturer’s recommendations. As well as helping to improve building safety, this testing supports the golden thread and helps mitigate the heightened liability risk that many contractors, specifiers and building owners face.
To support the increased demand and importance of pull-out testing, distributors offer value-added services, including efficient and certified pull out testing. Critically, such services are available with a quick turnaround of days rather than weeks, and as long as fixings are purchased via the distributor, testing is often free of charge.
While on site, distributor representatives can also advise and train contractors on correct installation methods, helping ensure consistent performance across all fixings. Michael said: “Despite the clear benefits of pull-out testing, it is sometimes overlooked. In projects where fixings appear straightforward, contractors may assume that manufacturer guidelines provide sufficient reassurance. Budget pressures can also play a role, as testing is typically charged on a per-test basis, meaning that costs can escalate if multiple tests are required across a large site. “Pull-out testing helps contractors understand the capabilities of a specific fixing by testing it in situ and is no longer just an additional step in the process. It has become a crucial element of modern construction,
providing reassurance that fixings will perform under real-world conditions. It is essential for installers to embrace testing as part of their standard practice. By partnering with a distributor or other approved organisation that offers on-site testing and technical support, contractors can ensure that their fixings are fit for purpose, reducing risk and improving overall project quality.”
Installation method and installer competence
The other major cause of fixing failure is the quality of installation. Fixings that carry a European Technical Approval would normally have a datasheet explaining the parameters of the fixing, load performance detail, and a prescribed installation method which needs to be followed. If the installation method isn’t followed correctly, or the parameters stated are not adhered to and there were to be a subsequent failure, the installer would most likely be responsible for this. Today, there is a much bigger emphasis to comply with the BS 8539 stipulation that installers should be competent. The route to competency for installers can be through installer training seminars by distributors or manufacturers, so the installer can then be certified as competent. Alternatively, Toolbox Talks on the specific system being installed can be carried out. This is often done on site, but some manufacturers do supply an online facility for this type of training.
Case Study
Paradise View, Birmingham City Centre
This is a refurbishment of an old office block to change usage to apartments. Like many refurbishing projects this is a good example of where fixing selection is crucial. The soffits throughout
this project were plaster coated terracotta hollow pots, supported by narrow concrete beams with a high level of reinforcing bar with a shallow concrete cover. The application was for ceiling hangers and partition track with deflection heads. None of the key fixing manufacturers had any data for fixing to terracotta pot. Extensive preliminary testing was therefore required to find a suitable fixing system to support the ceiling in this material. There were also areas where fixings needed to be installed into the narrow concrete beams. This caused issues with edge distance, so a fixing system was selected with limited expansion that could be used close to the beam edge. Fortunately, there is manufacturers data supporting this type of installation into concrete beams using
a narrow edge distance, so in this case a fixing selection was made with the combination of manufacturers data and using the preliminary load testing regime, to ascertain an allowable load for
the terracotta pot.
