IN Brief:
- Si Gibson has joined Etex Building Performance as technical director for Siniat and Promat.
- His remit includes expanding drywall and passive fire system testing and strengthening application evidence.
- Etex is increasing competency requirements, classification reporting, and design responsibility across its technical operation.
Etex Building Performance has appointed Si Gibson as technical director for its Siniat drywall and Promat passive fire protection brands.
Gibson joins from civil engineering access solutions manufacturer Wrekin, where he also served as technical director. His experience covers construction product development, research, testing, manufacturing, and technical leadership.
His new remit includes expanding the testing portfolios supporting Siniat internal wall systems and Promat passive fire products. Particular attention will be given to interfaces between materials and to the range of applications supported by classification evidence.
Siniat and Promat have undertaken an extensive testing programme, including work to relevant EN standards before their formal implementation. The programme is intended to give designers, contractors, installers, and approvers a broader technical basis for selecting complete systems.
Technical and sales personnel across both brands are also required to undertake the Institution of Fire Engineers Level 3 qualification in passive fire protection, extending competency requirements beyond specialist laboratory and design teams.
Siniat was among the early businesses to sign the Construction Code for Product Information, committing to product information that is clear, accurate, accessible, current, and unambiguous.
Gibson welcomed the industry’s increased focus on testing standards and competence, while arguing that manufacturers and the wider supply chain should not wait for legislation before improving technical practice.
“Collaboration is going to be vital to expanding knowledge and testing moving forwards to provide the sureties that developers and end users want to see,” he said.
He added that Etex had begun accepting design liability for its system designs while using detailed classification reports to reduce uncertainty around construction decisions.
Testing increasingly centres on complete systems
Passive fire performance depends on complete assemblies rather than individual product names or headline ratings. Board type, framing, insulation, fixings, joints, penetrations, deflection heads, structural movement, substrates, workmanship, and adjoining systems can all influence the result achieved in practice.
Recent guidance on passive fire specification has addressed recurring confusion between products including fire curtains, smoke curtains, barriers, cavity barriers, insulation, and systems carrying different radiation classifications.
Comparable uncertainty can arise in drywall and compartmentation where a tested wall is modified to accommodate services, greater heights, alternative framing, unusual junctions, different boards, or products supplied by several manufacturers.
Testing every possible configuration is neither practical nor affordable, which gives extended application assessments and classification reports a central role. Those documents establish the variations that may be made while remaining within a technically justified performance range.
The industry has often relied too heavily on a stated fire resistance period without examining the conditions under which that result was achieved. A rating does not establish suitability where the installed arrangement differs materially from the specimen tested.
Interfaces now receive greater scrutiny because many defects occur where separate packages meet. Drylining connects with structural steel, floors, façades, ceilings, doors, ducts, pipework, cable routes, and other fire stopping systems, often across the responsibilities of several designers and subcontractors.
Clear design responsibility is therefore as important as product performance. Whoever provides a system design must define its scope, assumptions, limitations, and dependencies so that changes made elsewhere do not invalidate the supporting evidence.
Etex’s decision to accept design liability for system designs represents a more formal commitment than providing literature or general technical support. It will require controlled approval procedures, competent staff, project specific records, defined exclusions, and close management of later changes.
That responsibility does not replace the duties held by designers and contractors. Project teams must provide accurate information, install systems within the stated parameters, coordinate penetrations, and record any substitution or departure from the approved arrangement.
Competence must also extend beyond specialist technical departments because sales teams are often the first point of contact for customers and can influence system selection. A working understanding of passive fire protection helps prevent commercial discussions from moving beyond the evidence supporting the product.
Construction product regulation, building safety duties, and the reliability of technical information remain under close examination. Manufacturers are increasingly expected to provide evidence that can be applied at system level and followed through procurement, installation, inspection, handover, and later alteration.
Gibson’s immediate programme is likely to focus on gaps affecting commonly used applications. Interface details, increased heights, mixed substrates, service penetrations, and routine site variations remain areas where generic specifications encounter practical construction conditions.
The testing and competency work already established across Siniat and Promat gives the new technical director a substantial base on which to build. Its effectiveness will be measured by whether project teams can make faster and more dependable decisions while maintaining a clear connection between tested performance and the system installed on site.
