Multi-Family Balconies and Fire Ratings in Canada

Short answer: Tarimatec holds Bfl-s1 for floorings and Broof(t1) under UNE-EN 13501-1 and ENV 1187 — European classifications. It does not hold a CAN/ULC S102 test or a CCMC evaluation report today. Where your authority having jurisdiction requires Canadian evidence, it cannot be specified on European data alone. Ask us for the current status.

This is the post where we tell you what we cannot do. If you are specifying a walking surface on a multi-family balcony in Canada, the fire question is not a detail you resolve late — it is the gate everything else passes through, and a board that cannot clear it is not a candidate no matter how it performs underfoot.

So here is the position, stated plainly, with the European classifications Tarimatec does hold, the Canadian evidence it does not, what the difference actually is, which competitors hold what, and where Tarimatec can still be specified today without a fight. You will find no conversion table below, because an honest one cannot be written.

What Tarimatec holds

Two classifications, both European, both documented:

• Bfl-s1 for reaction to fire of floorings, classified under UNE-EN 13501-1. The B is the reaction-to-fire class, the "fl" subscript says the classification is for flooring, and s1 is the smoke-production sub-class, the lowest of three.
• Broof(t1) for external fire exposure of roofs, tested under the ENV 1187 family of methods — the test regime for a surface exposed to burning brands and radiant heat from outside.

Both are what a European specifier wants to see on a terrace or balcony deck. On a Spanish project they are the right documents, correctly issued, and they do the job. In Canada they are evidence a reviewer may read with interest, and then ask a different question.

What CAN/ULC S102 actually measures

CAN/ULC S102 is the Canadian standard test for surface burning characteristics of building materials and assemblies. The apparatus is a Steiner-type tunnel: a long horizontal chamber with the specimen mounted on the ceiling, a controlled gas flame at one end, and forced airflow along its length. Two outputs come out the other side — a flame spread rating, which indexes how far and how fast flame travels along the specimen against calibrated references, and a smoke developed classification, from the optical density of what comes off it.

Those two numbers are the currency of a Canadian code discussion. When a reviewer asks about flame-spread, they are asking for an FSR from that test, or from the closely related ASTM E84 tunnel that produces the Class A, B and C designations you see quoted by North American decking brands. It is a familiar number in a familiar unit, and a reviewer can act on it without interpretation.

Why Bfl-s1 cannot be converted into a flame spread rating

Here is the crux, and it is a technical point rather than a marketing one. The European flooring classification comes from a different pair of tests: a radiant panel method that measures critical heat flux across a horizontal specimen, plus a small-flame ignitability test, with smoke measured alongside. The Canadian and American tunnel tests mount the specimen overhead in forced airflow and measure flame travel over time. Different orientation, different heat source, different airflow, different measured quantity.

You cannot arithmetically map one onto the other, and anyone who offers you an equivalence is selling rather than specifying. Bfl-s1 is not a Class A rating in a European accent. It is a result from a different experiment, and the correct thing for a specifier to do with it is present it as what it is — European classification data — and then answer the Canadian question separately.

What a CCMC evaluation is, and why an AHJ asks for one

The Canadian Construction Materials Centre, part of the National Research Council, evaluates construction products against the requirements of the National Building Code and issues an evaluation report with a number. An authority having jurisdiction will generally accept that report as evidence that the product conforms, which is exactly why the question gets asked: it moves the burden of judgement off the reviewer's desk and onto a document with national standing.

Picture a plan reviewer in Ottawa working through a six-storey residential building on a Tuesday. They are not hostile to a European board — they simply have no mechanism for accepting foreign classification data as code conformance, and no appetite for being the person who improvised one. When they ask for a CCMC number, a folder of Spanish test reports is not a smaller version of the right answer. It is a different answer.

Who holds Canadian evidence, and what they hold

Where a competitor genuinely wins, we say so, and here several of them do. Fiberon holds CCMC 13500-R. Trex and Deckorators also hold CCMC reports. On flame spread specifically, TimberTech's Advanced PVC lines carry a Class A flame-spread rating to ASTM E84, and Trex Transcend is Class B. If your reviewer wants a Canadian evaluation report in the submission, those brands can put one in front of you today and Tarimatec cannot.

What the project requires	What Tarimatec holds	The gap	What to do
Reaction to fire, flooring	Bfl-s1 to UNE-EN 13501-1	European classification, not an FSR	Submit as European data; do not present it as a Class rating
External fire, roof exposure	Broof(t1) to ENV 1187	European method, no Canadian equivalent on file	Confirm with the AHJ whether European roof data is acceptable for the assembly
Flame spread rating and smoke developed classification	Not held	No CAN/ULC S102 test exists for this product	Contact us for the current testing status before you shortlist
Evidence of code conformance an AHJ will accept	Not held	No CCMC evaluation report today	If the AHJ requires one, specify a product that holds it
Slip resistance on a wet balcony	Class 3 / R11 wet to UNE-ENV 12633	None for most reviews	Submit the UNE-ENV 12633 report
Water absorption	0.59 % at 24 h hollow, 0.38 % solid to UNE-EN 317	None	Submit the UNE-EN 317 data
Warranty on a specified project	25-year manufacturer warranty from Tarimatec, administered in Canada by Zinodeck	Excludes damage from weight overload	Read the full terms before quoting a figure to the client

The unlock, and where it stands

The path is not mysterious. A CAN/ULC S102 test commissioned through the manufacturer, on the profiles intended for the Canadian market, produces the flame spread rating and smoke developed classification a reviewer is asking for; a CCMC evaluation is the larger, slower piece of work that turns test data into a report an AHJ accepts on sight. Zinodeck is pursuing Canadian testing with Tarimatec. We are not going to publish a date on a blog post, because a date on a blog post is how specifiers end up designing around a document that has not arrived.

So do the unglamorous thing: ask us directly what the current status is before you shortlist, and hold us to a written answer. If the honest answer that week is "not yet", you have lost an email rather than a submission, and you can specify accordingly. Our page for architects and specifiers lists the documentation set we can supply today.

Where Tarimatec can be specified now

None of the above makes the board unspecifiable in Canada. It makes it unspecifiable in one particular situation. Outside that situation, the European data set is thorough and the material is a strong fit:

• Private low-rise decks and single-family projects, where the fire question does not attach to a balcony assembly in a multi-unit building.
• Ground-level terraces and garden decks, including commercial ground-level patios that fall outside the combustible-cladding provisions.
• Hospitality pool surrounds and resort terraces outside those provisions, where the governing requirements are wet slip class, water absorption and drainage detail. This is where the Tarimatec composite decking range earns its place, and it is covered in our guide to specifying composite decking for pool decks.

Picture a Vancouver Island courtyard terrace that never fully dries between October and April. Nothing there needs a tunnel test. It needs a wet slip class, a drainage detail, an aluminium sub-frame at 350 mm joist centres in EN AW 6005 T6, and 316L stainless clips. Tarimatec documents all of it.

Frequently asked questions

Does Tarimatec have a CAN/ULC S102 flame spread rating?

No. Tarimatec holds Bfl-s1 for floorings and Broof(t1) under UNE-EN 13501-1 and ENV 1187, which are European classifications. There is no CAN/ULC S102 surface-burning test for the product today. Zinodeck is pursuing Canadian testing with the manufacturer, and specifiers should contact us for the current status rather than assume either way.

Is Bfl-s1 the same as a Class A flame spread rating?

No, and it should never be presented that way. The European flooring classification comes from a radiant panel method with a horizontal specimen, plus a small-flame ignitability test. A Class A rating comes from a Steiner-type tunnel with the specimen mounted overhead in forced airflow. The tests measure different quantities under different conditions, so no conversion between them is valid.

What is a CCMC evaluation report?

It is an evaluation issued by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre at the National Research Council, assessing a construction product against the requirements of the National Building Code. An authority having jurisdiction will generally accept it as evidence of code conformance. Fiberon holds CCMC 13500-R, and Trex and Deckorators also hold CCMC reports. Tarimatec does not hold one today.

Can I use Tarimatec on a multi-family balcony in Canada?

Not where the authority having jurisdiction requires a Canadian evaluation or a flame spread rating for that assembly, because the product cannot supply either on European data alone today. Establish the requirement with the reviewer early. Where the assembly falls outside those provisions, the European test data set is complete and the board can be specified normally.

Which decking brands hold Canadian evaluations today?

Fiberon holds CCMC 13500-R, and Trex and Deckorators also hold CCMC reports. On flame spread, TimberTech's Advanced PVC lines carry a Class A rating to ASTM E84 and Trex Transcend is Class B. If your submission needs Canadian evidence in the folder this year, those are the products that can supply it.

If you are working on a multi-family project right now, do not shortlist on a blog post. Request a project quote in CAD and the current testing status in writing, compare it against what our competitors can document, and if you want to feel the board while you wait for that answer, order decking samples — they are paid and ship from Vaughan, Ontario in 5 to 10 business days. There is more context in our post on composite decking versus PVC.