Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- 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:
There are many "flammable" materials used in construction that when selected correctly and used correctly do not pose a risk to safety.
- 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.
If it does turn out to be that the cladding is implemented, it will need to be established if it was:
There are many "flammable" materials used in construction that when selected correctly and used correctly do not pose a risk to safety.
- 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.
I think you mean ' implicated '
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
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
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.I wonder if this a bit like the VW and car diesel scandal where lab testing and real world testing are miles apart.
maybe it might bring about a rethink on such practices.
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.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.
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.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.
This is why it interests me, with the time taken to achieve this.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.
I think LFB have said they rescued 60 or so from the building.Do we know if anyone stayed inside and survived? So was every flat burnt out?
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?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.
I don't know where they'd fit them. But it's now law in a high rise. No choice... would you want a water sprinkler going off over a chip pan fire?
Yup, and I've just checked BS 9251 and the only occupied room that doesn't require sprinkler coverage is a small bathroom.I don't know where they'd fit them. But it's now law in a high rise. No choice.
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.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.
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.
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 think the death toll is going to be very high, maybe 100s as looking at the flats inside is just horrible.
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.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.
It was on the radio news that officials are refusing to release one.I've not seen a collated figure for missing persons.
I did see a video of a young lady who was trying to get out of her flat, but she had to shut her door as the smoke was terrible.
Is this the same lady who tweeted?
She got out OK.
You can retro fit or pull down if that's too expensive. This place is very old. They pull down a lot newer buildings.We cannot negate all risk, its a terrible shame of course.
We also cannot change old buildings to new standards fully, not cost effective and sometimes impossible to implement.
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.
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.
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?
WTF has nationality got to do with it?
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?
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.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.
in a word BREXIT the population voted to shut down immigration and the massive amount of benefits and housing for non UK nationals.
Do read what he wrote. Please.There's a word for people like you