Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

[Murph7355]

Globs said:

Luckily that appears to be changing. We've had enough serious cladding fires in the world for this to have been addressed years ago.

I don't see it changing as I don't see what good it would do for a firemen to take off a cladding panel and have a look.

If the material was properly tested and installed per the instructions etc, then what good will taking it off 6mths, a year or more later do? The inspections need to happen during the original testing and then construction. Which I'd be surprised if they didn't.

I suspect there's a flaw in the prescribed testing of the material. Possibly one which only hindsight would expose (although it being banned in this type of use in the US and Germany might suggest not).

I imagine testing something like this in "real world" scenarios would be a challenge. What were the circumstances of it first igniting, how much height/volume was needed to get the same effect etc.

It's going to be a tough one on the inspection team IMO, and then what to do after. I suspect the only logical thing to do would be to ensure ALL materials used are non-flammable. But how practical is that going to be across all building types? And possibly to mandate sprinkler and other fire systems in all buildings over a certain size.

Either way, I think we can foresee some hefty increases in building costs soon.

[andy_s]

Manufacturers testing was mentioned early on; there was some criticism of it as it wasn't a holistic test and was a literal application of the regulation; the regulation classes non-flammable and fire retardant to a certain standard as being in the same class.

As said before there is systemic failure here, probably [from a lay pov]:

Lack of proper regulatory revision or oversight following similar incidents.
Inappropriate manufacturer testing.
Poor regulation of materials that passed a test but not in the same circumstances they are used.
Architecturally I suspect a cookie cutter approach to cladding due to previous works completed leading to complacence in safety standard in specific cases:
- an over-riding of the buildings natural fire coping mechanism [containment] by, in essence, installing a flammable sheath which defeated this mechanism.
- Potentially inappropriate advice for occupants given the above.
Lower level local fire detection and fighting appliances not maintained / installed.
Diminishing of authority and involvement of FB replaced by self-certification [in essence].
Conflation of responsibilities between owner and landlord.

[Vipers]

Although a number of samples have failed the tests, it still leaves the question, was the correct spec called up for on the plans, and someone decided there was a cheaper alternative, and either knew, or didn't know it didnt meet the fire regs.

If they knew then they surely must face criminal charges.

Seems most odd though that so many have failed.

[The Surveyor]

Vipers said:

.....
Seems most odd though that so many have failed.

Failed what though?

Have they failed to meet their original specification, or failed these current fire tests. If the Building Regs permitted the use of products with 'limited combustibility' as part of the rainscreen cladding system and they are now testing to see if the cladding or insulation is non-combustible then you expect to see a large number failing.

[matchmaker]

Just noticed this - it seems that Scottish building regulations are stricter following a fatal tower block fire in 1999:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40406057

BBC said:

Following the Grenfell Tower, 60 high-rise buildings in 25 local authorities in England have failed fire safety tests so far. But no local authority or housing association tower blocks in Scotland have been found to use the same kind of cladding.

In Scotland, a change to building regulations in 2005 made it mandatory for builders to ensure that any external cladding "inhibited" fire spreading. The new regulations were introduced following a fatal fire in a Scottish tower block in 1999.

[PurpleMoonlight]

The Surveyor said:

Failed what though?

Have they failed to meet their original specification, or failed these current fire tests. If the Building Regs permitted the use of products with 'limited combustibility' as part of the rainscreen cladding system and they are now testing to see if the cladding or insulation is non-combustible then you expect to see a large number failing.

BBC news mentioned this earlier.

Nobody seems to be saying what the test criteria actually is.

Reeks of scaremongering for the sake of political gain.

[GloverMart]

The Surveyor said:

Vipers said:

.....
Seems most odd though that so many have failed.

Failed what though?

Have they failed to meet their original specification, or failed these current fire tests. If the Building Regs permitted the use of products with 'limited combustibility' as part of the rainscreen cladding system and they are now testing to see if the cladding or insulation is non-combustible then you expect to see a large number failing.

I'm sure they said on the radio this morning that they are checking the cladding most likely to be combustible before the others, which may skew the figures a little. Out of 600 BOF's, I can't see them all failing.

[BlackLabel]

"Firm which supplied cladding thought to have been on London's Grenfell Tower ends global sales for high-rise blocks"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40409981

[Halmyre]

matchmaker said:

Just noticed this - it seems that Scottish building regulations are stricter following a fatal tower block fire in 1999:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40406057

BBC said:

Following the Grenfell Tower, 60 high-rise buildings in 25 local authorities in England have failed fire safety tests so far. But no local authority or housing association tower blocks in Scotland have been found to use the same kind of cladding.

In Scotland, a change to building regulations in 2005 made it mandatory for builders to ensure that any external cladding "inhibited" fire spreading. The new regulations were introduced following a fatal fire in a Scottish tower block in 1999.

I've just been reading that article as well. The article somewhat glides over the outcome of the Westminster enquiry.

[wc98]

Zod said:

This is the point of the cladding. Insulation works both ways - keeping in heat and preventing the sun from heating up the surface. Poor design, allowing vertical air channels behind cladding and use of cladding with a flammable core, but no regular firebreaks seems to have been the problem at Grenfell.

i understand that is the point of it ,but does it work as stated in a large tower block ? there is a lot of heat generated in a large building with people living in such close proximity . years ago an aunt lived in a high rise in glasgow ,rarely used the heating and i imagine the temp averages a few degrees higher in winter in london due to uhi alone never mind the latitude difference. is there a measurable reduction in fuel bills after this insulation and cladding has been fitted ?

i am not denying it does work, i would just like to see physical numbers to back it up,not theoretical performance based on manufacturers data.

[wc98]

godskitchen said:

Yes, insulation does do as you say but pir, pur and other synthetic products have the effect of trapping heat in the summer once it all equalises. They don't breath or absorb. We are close to using as much energy cooling buildings as we were heating them. Solving one problem but it's creating another.

ah , nice to see someone else realises what i was trying to get at .as munter says , no accounting for the hard of thinking though.

[Vipers]

The Surveyor said:

Vipers said:

Not so sure, one council have said what they paid for is not what's fitted, so who changed the spec and pocketed the difference, we shall see.

Why would a council make such a statement

Normal procurement for such work would be based on a 'performance specification' from the council, the contractor being given the flexibility for detailed design in order to meet that performance specification. The performance specification would dictate the minimum standards which the cladding would have to achieve. The contractor would need to demonstrate that their solution achieves the performance specification, the contractor installs to that specification, the Council inspects, and Council then signs off the payment.

A Council admitting that they have authorised payment for something that doesn't meet their own specification should be a major embarrassment, not something quoted to deflect liability.

Absolutely no idea, but apparantly that was in one of the papers last week, may have even been quoted on here.

[The Surveyor]

wc98 said:

godskitchen said:

Yes, insulation does do as you say but pir, pur and other synthetic products have the effect of trapping heat in the summer once it all equalises. They don't breath or absorb. We are close to using as much energy cooling buildings as we were heating them. Solving one problem but it's creating another.

ah , nice to see someone else realises what i was trying to get at .as munter says , no accounting for the hard of thinking though.

The insulation helps to equalise the temperatures across the outside walls which eliminates any thermal bridging which causes cold spots, which then leads to condensation and mildew which has historically been a problem. Wrapping the whole envelope externally (rather than just the inside faces of the walls) before adding a rain-screen is a much more effective solution as well as avoiding huge amounts of disruption. The rain-screen also helps control solar gain meaning it really should be a very effective solution to tired old towers. All provided the windows can be opened for general ventilation, there are effective vapour barriers, and you don't create an unacceptable fire risk of course.

[The Surveyor]

Halmyre said:

matchmaker said:

Just noticed this - it seems that Scottish building regulations are stricter following a fatal tower block fire in 1999:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40406057

BBC said:

Following the Grenfell Tower, 60 high-rise buildings in 25 local authorities in England have failed fire safety tests so far. But no local authority or housing association tower blocks in Scotland have been found to use the same kind of cladding.

In Scotland, a change to building regulations in 2005 made it mandatory for builders to ensure that any external cladding "inhibited" fire spreading. The new regulations were introduced following a fatal fire in a Scottish tower block in 1999.

I've just been reading that article as well. The article somewhat glides over the outcome of the Westminster enquiry.

Scottish Building Standards have always been tighter of fire than in England, when I started in the industry back in the late 1980's you had to factor in simple things like extra fire doors onto escape stairs when working on projects North of the border in order to get a building warrant. I could never understand why things were not standardised across Britain.

[speedking31]

Vipers said:

The Surveyor said:

Vipers said:

Not so sure, one council have said what they paid for is not what's fitted, so who changed the spec and pocketed the difference, we shall see.

Why would a council make such a statement

Normal procurement for such work would be based on a 'performance specification' from the council, the contractor being given the flexibility for detailed design in order to meet that performance specification. The performance specification would dictate the minimum standards which the cladding would have to achieve. The contractor would need to demonstrate that their solution achieves the performance specification, the contractor installs to that specification, the Council inspects, and Council then signs off the payment.

A Council admitting that they have authorised payment for something that doesn't meet their own specification should be a major embarrassment, not something quoted to deflect liability.

Absolutely no idea, but apparantly that was in one of the papers last week, may have even been quoted on here.

From the BBC.

[Camden] Council leader Georgia Gould said: "The panels that were fitted were not to the standard that we had commissioned. In light of this, we will be informing the contractor that we will be taking urgent legal advice.

[ikarl]

wc98 said:

Zod said:

This is the point of the cladding. Insulation works both ways - keeping in heat and preventing the sun from heating up the surface. Poor design, allowing vertical air channels behind cladding and use of cladding with a flammable core, but no regular firebreaks seems to have been the problem at Grenfell.

i understand that is the point of it ,but does it work as stated in a large tower block ? there is a lot of heat generated in a large building with people living in such close proximity . years ago an aunt lived in a high rise in glasgow ,rarely used the heating and i imagine the temp averages a few degrees higher in winter in london due to uhi alone never mind the latitude difference. is there a measurable reduction in fuel bills after this insulation and cladding has been fitted ?

i am not denying it does work, i would just like to see physical numbers to back it up,not theoretical performance based on manufacturers data.

If you want to see actual physical numbers to back it up, go and do some research. It's not really fair asking for people to do it on your behalf, which will then probably be picked to pieces over minor points that don't fit peoples agendas.

15 minutes on Google and you may be able to form your own opinion.

[gooner1]

speedking31 said:

rom the BBC.

[Camden] Council leader Georgia Gould said: "The panels that were fitted were not to the standard that we had commissioned. In light of this, we will be informing the contractor that we will be taking urgent legal advice.

Did not P.Hammond state the panels themselves were "illegal"

[jmorgan]

Did I just hear the BBC report that 1000 fire doors are missing in the other tower blocks?

[Pan Pan Pan]

The Grenfell tower fire, will have implications not just for the UK, but for the rest of the world as the insulation used for the cladding at Grenfell is used all over the world.
The material is manufactured by St Gobain so the fire may have deep implications for similar buildings in France, as St Gobain is a French company. I wonder if the UK government may be able to claim compensation from the manufacturer, in the same way that the US government claimed compensation from BP after the deaths of oil workers on the Mexican gulf oil platform fire, and resulting pollution?

[Laurel Green]

jmorgan said:

Did I just hear the BBC report that 1000 fire doors are missing in the other tower blocks?

I think that was wrongly stated. AFAIK, because of the outer fire protection not being up to scratch, the interior doors need to have up-rated fire doors fitted.