Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
and the site receives a small commission
London tower block on fire
- Thread starter mikew
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
If it does turn out to be that the cladding is implemented, it will need to be established if it was:
It is in the detail (not the speculation) of this specific circumstance that the lessons will be learned.
- the right material installed incorrectly
- the wrong material installed incorrectly
- the wrong material installed correctly
It is in the detail (not the speculation) of this specific circumstance that the lessons will be learned.
- Messages
- 1,849
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you mean ' implicated '
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From the planning application
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/se...=decision&tab=tabs-planning-2#tabs-planning-6
PREVIOUS SPECIFICATION
"Grenfell Tower has a communal bathroom extract system. This
system extracts air at a rate of 1.8 m3/s, 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year. This warm air extracted from the bathrooms represents
a significant wasted energy stream out of the building."
"The residential units are heated by a single loop ladder
arrangement which also provides domestic hot water (DHW) via
a hot water cylinder in each flat. The pipework serves the flats
via six risers (1 per flat on each floor) and from there runs within
the flats to radiators through pipework cast into the screed
floors."
PROPOSED
"The chosen strategy is to wrap the building in a thick layer of
insulation and then over-clad with a rain screen to protect the
insulation from the weather and from physical damage."
Proposed cladding additional elements
Zink Cladding (New Rain Screen)
Ventilated Cavity 50mm
Insulation (New, Celotex FR5000) - Product specification - Has Class 0 fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with BS 476
https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/fr5000
https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/fr5000
But they didn't use Celotex, but Rynobond which has the same standards according to their site.
The British standard (BS476-6 and 476-7) for the wall cladding allegedly used (Reynobond). The construction is two sheets of aluminum with polyethylene between them. The test is to take a single piece 225mm square and heat it while playing an ignition source on the outside of it. The result would be that the polyethylene melts and runs out of the bottom as the flame plays on the aluminium. It does not seem to be an ideal test as were this a wall made up of individual sheets the molten goo would run out and pour down the building causing exactly what was seen. The test appears to fire test the outside surface but totally out of context with a real world application.
- Messages
- 15,733
- Edit My Images
- No
The devil as they say is in the details.
I surmise the truth about the causes of this tragic fire will will only come out in the enquiry process as the surely the inquest will defer to that 'higher accounting service' before the coroner passes their verdict/decision.
It will be months before the truth will out! No solace to those relatives & friends of those who died or have life changing injuries
But hopefully "we" will learn and not allow a repeat but surely if errors, either deliberate or accidental due to poor diligence' heads will roll............even to the point of corporate manslaughter???
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,362
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IIRC that is one of the tests required for a material to determine if it is of limited combustibility or not.
If a material is of limited combustibility you can use it anywhere you like without concern. If it is not of limited combustibility and the building is above 18m in height then fire tests are required replicating every build up variant where that material is used and these are in context with the real world application.
In my experience, fire tests are avoided in all but the biggest budget projects as the costs involved are so high and you revert back to a mineral wool insulation.
However there are some companies (and I am talking some of the biggest players here) that will state that a product has certification for use above 18m, but hidden away in some small print somewhere it will say that this relates to one specific fire test that was carried. If you detail varies in any way, this is no longer valid. But these companies sometimes gloss over that and cladding contractors who should know better play ignorant.
The legislation is gotten around by way of a desk study where the proposed details are compared against the test details where someone will state that they consider them to be sufficiently similar and do not require physical testing. Building control officers not being fire experts can accept this even though it may not be suitable. I expect after this, this will be the first thing to change.
If a material is of limited combustibility you can use it anywhere you like without concern. If it is not of limited combustibility and the building is above 18m in height then fire tests are required replicating every build up variant where that material is used and these are in context with the real world application.
In my experience, fire tests are avoided in all but the biggest budget projects as the costs involved are so high and you revert back to a mineral wool insulation.
However there are some companies (and I am talking some of the biggest players here) that will state that a product has certification for use above 18m, but hidden away in some small print somewhere it will say that this relates to one specific fire test that was carried. If you detail varies in any way, this is no longer valid. But these companies sometimes gloss over that and cladding contractors who should know better play ignorant.
The legislation is gotten around by way of a desk study where the proposed details are compared against the test details where someone will state that they consider them to be sufficiently similar and do not require physical testing. Building control officers not being fire experts can accept this even though it may not be suitable. I expect after this, this will be the first thing to change.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The VW scandal was nothing to do with the differences between lab tests and real world tests. That was all about cheat software that knew when a vehicle was under test and allowed the minimal emission control to work.
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
The risks of sandwich panels have been known for a long time. They were a particular problem in the food industry over a decade ago. Any penetration of the outer panels can result in the panel sandwich itself forming a chimney effect if the filler material reaches combustion temperature. And in the initial phases of a fire the the fire may be hidden within the panel. By the time the fire is evident it's already well established. There are specific measures required to insert breaks to prevent fire spread. But one of the problems is that it doesn't need a very big fire to reach the temperatures where the metal skin of the panels will melt. And with enough heat the metal sheets themselves will burn.
One thing I'm interested in is if the fire started inside a flat the pathway it took to reach a penetration of the insulation panels.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wonder how long it will be before someone produces a video showing the result of a piece of cladding with a flame being applied to it so that we can see whether it easily flames up quickly. As things stand it looks pretty much like that stuff should not be on any tower block.
Tori_T
Admin
- Messages
- 6,576
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pure speculation, but once the fire's well established it can reach temps of around 600°C. The melting point of uPVC windows is around 160°C, so they'll be out in short order. Then the flames get to wick up the metal-clad polyethylene, which will melt and start running out at 150-180°C, and also catching fire.
The aluminium cladding would melt at about 660°C, so that may stay intact, but I'd expect some distortion before then, and if it's attached to the polyethylene with adhesive, or fasteners that don't go through to the concrete wall, it'll fall off when the polyethylene melts. Then you've got the fire triangle on the entire outer face of the building, which is the only part that isn't fire-walled and touches on at least one side of every flat.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Plenty of combustibles inside a flat/house to get up to a high temperature, then as Tori said, either the window frames melt and the glass falls out, or the windows were probably open, or a bit of both. Then the fire licks out the windows seeking the oxygen and away it went, possibly. Pure speculation mind. As said, the cladding was specified to a British standard and class 0 - the best performance apparently, but then from the images it appears it was the outside that burnt, which then made it's way inwards with the heat (looking for fuel) as the windows went floor by floor. Once inside the fire doors of the flats are rated for 30 or 60 mins? Then did the corridor fire doors shut or were wedged open, did they seal properly. Lots of questions that I guess will come out in a report some time later.
But this tragedy does need to be urgently looked at, as several other tower buildings have had this insulation applied to them to reduce bills and smarten up the buildings.
But this tragedy does need to be urgently looked at, as several other tower buildings have had this insulation applied to them to reduce bills and smarten up the buildings.
- Messages
- 4,717
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Do we know if anyone stayed inside and survived? So was every flat burnt out?
It seems the advice to stay inside is being cited as bad advice in some of these cases. People will ignore it, in future, after seeing this.
I thought the best advice when you are not sure, is get out! Get out! But in a high rise, smoke or other hazards might be worse. But at least the people being treated for smoke inhalation are alive.
It seems the advice to stay inside is being cited as bad advice in some of these cases. People will ignore it, in future, after seeing this.
I thought the best advice when you are not sure, is get out! Get out! But in a high rise, smoke or other hazards might be worse. But at least the people being treated for smoke inhalation are alive.
- Messages
- 4,717
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sprinklers are being discussed now. But would the, presumed, cladding fire spreading characteristics have circumvented the sprinklers in this case? Naturally, in future this would also be taken into consideration. If indeed there was such an effect.
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the death toll is going to be very high, maybe 100s as looking at the flats inside is just horrible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40291227
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40291227
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
This is why it interests me, with the time taken to achieve this.
I have an alternative speculative theory, if the fire started in the kitchen and either a window was open already or one was opened to let the smoke out.
I think LFB have said they rescued 60 or so from the building.
Remember, the influence of "stay in place" is entirely dependent upon how quickly residents were made aware. Reports suggest that there were only isolated domestic smoke detectors and no building wide system, so by the time some people were aware of the risk (in the middle of the night) it was already too late to evacuate.
I know from experience that the majority of people will regard any alarm as a false alarm - unless they can see or smell smoke.
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Not if the fire was extinguished before it go hold and spread to the cladding. But I have reservations over rushing to install sprinklers in residential buildings, there are many issues to be considered. Here's just one.. would you want a water sprinkler going off over a chip pan fire?
- Messages
- 4,717
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't know where they'd fit them. But it's now law in a high rise. No choice.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Yup, and I've just checked BS 9251 and the only occupied room that doesn't require sprinkler coverage is a small bathroom.
- Messages
- 4,717
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm still curious to know if any heeded the stay inside on the higher levels and were rescued. Or did "everyone" at the top perish.
Well many in the news said they ignored the advice and got out, which saved their lives.
Last edited:
Mr Bump
From under the bridge
- Messages
- 9,629
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't say it was relevent, i said the big difference between lab and real world testing. The VW scandal exposed the indusrty and the danger of the emmisions.
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Unofficially expected to be closer to 150, Lily Allen just suggested this figure live on Ch4 and John Snow acknowledged that he was aware of the higher numbers being discussed off the record and that to avoid speculation media channels were reporting the lower confirmed number from official sources.
I've not seen a collated figure for missing persons.
- Messages
- 2,632
- Name
- Damian Brown
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmm, now they want to shut them down...
- Messages
- 2,632
- Name
- Damian Brown
- Edit My Images
- No
And by now I meant 2013 :-/
Tori_T
Admin
- Messages
- 6,576
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You wouldn't necessarily have to reach 600°C to destroy the integrity of a closed window, 200°C would be quite enough to soften those beadings/frames and drop the glass under it's own weight. An air gap at the top of the pane would achieve the same result as opening it.
It was on the radio news that officials are refusing to release one.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
That would be great news if if was her, it was her boyfriend who told her to shut the door to stop smoke getting in.
- Messages
- 4,717
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can retro fit or pull down if that's too expensive. This place is very old. They pull down a lot newer buildings.
Life is more valuable than an old building.
- Messages
- 7,954
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Most of the speculation is that noone survived from the top 3 or 4 floors sadly, but like most things that has not been confirmed.
Mr Bump
From under the bridge
- Messages
- 9,629
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
unfortunatly that is not the case and even if it was we do not have enough land or money to give everyone a nice new shiny modern living space.
london especially is just beyond bonkers with housing costs.
given also the fact most of the people in this block were not UK nationals what do you think the population would say in the current climate if we gave them all a 250k green field semi?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
WTF has nationality got to do with it?
Mr Bump
From under the bridge
- Messages
- 9,629
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
in a word BREXIT the population voted to shut down immigration and the massive amount of benefits and housing for non UK nationals.
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
At the end of the day HUMAN Beings died, just like you me and any other person Humans.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But it didn't expose it, it's been known for years. That's why they keep coming up with stricter emission regulations. Even the proposal to move to real world testing predated the VW scandal.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Ignoring that your comments show you as exactly what you are,...
How do you know who lived there? Their status ? And why as you imply does that make them lesser human beings?
There's a word for people like you
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Do read what he wrote. Please.