Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

[Welshbeef]

Sky news
27 tower blocks in London over 15 different councils fail safety cladding tests

[WatchfulEye]

motco said:

This page and the home page it is linked to are interesting. I hadn't realised that it wasn't a single composite panel they had applied, but that they assembled layers on the walls on site. Surely a simulated insulated wall using this combination of products should have been spread of flame tested and fire resistance tested as an ensemble?

The legal requirements are:

EITHER

Materials route:
Use non-combustible insulation with non-combustible rainscreen (Scotland) or non-combustible/low risk flammable rainscreen (E&W)

OR

Performance route:
Perform building scale facade fire testing of the ensemble construction; or obtain an expert opinion that fire testing is not required as based on a literature review/desktop analysis that the planned ensemble construction it is expected to pass.

[andy_s]

bhstewie said:

If you have the fire service standing in your office saying they can't guarantee 800 peoples safety you have to do something IMO, simple as that, in spite of some of the comments I'm reading on here.

Would you happily house your wife and kids or elderly relatives on the top floor of one of these blocks for a month knowing what we now know?

Where risk is concerned, perception is reality.

[saaby93]

Elysium said:

The ACM rainscreen is not backed by the Reynobond, it is just Reynobond panels. Maximum 6mm thick sandwich of PE covered by 0.5mm aluminimum.

The will be an air gap and my understanding is that it should have been broken at each compartment line. as shown in the cross section here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/ke...

Whilst the Celotex can burn, the fire stops should have prevented that fire from spreading. However, it appears that the Reynobond, which is also flammable, has provided a way for the fire to pass over the fire stopping and ignite the next layer of Celotex ... and so on.

The Celotex has reportedly failed the police fire test, but the manufacturer's marketing claims it has met the BR 135 requirements, when tested with a non flammable Marley Eternit rainscreen.

The combination of combustible insulation, with a combustible rainscreen seems to be the problem. At this point, I don't think we know if the firestopping was installed correctly.

Maybe we should have a sticky to try to stop this going around and around - and at last we're calling the materials combustible not flammable
The guardian article talks of aluminum rather than upvc windows and the concrete columns look huge compared to the photos
It's also shows plans for aluminium rain screen not the reynobond aluminum covered PE

Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 24th June 11:01

[Elysium]

V8 Fettler said:

Elysium said:

V8 Fettler said:

Elysium said:

tleefox said:

Not sure if this has already been discussed but has anyone found the CDM Co-ordinator yet? If I was he / she I'd probably be asking my friends if I could borrow a shotgun about now.

I don't think the CDMC (or Principal Designer as it is now) can be blamed here. They don't specify anything or assess Building Control compliance. In fact they don't even need to visit the site.

They just prepare pre-construction information, comment on the Health and Safety Plan, recieve and review designers risk assessments and help to collate the Health and Safety File.

It's a process role more than anything and their focus on operational hazards is usually around maintenance. I wouldn't expect them to be a backstop for incorrectly specified or, as it currently appears might be the case, fraudulently sold materials.

The design risk assessment for the cladding should have indicated the raised level of risk created by the new cladding.

Yes - provided that the designer understood that there was a risk. They would look at likelihood of a fire occuring x severity of outcome. Based on manufacturer data like this, I expect most architects would see the likelihood of harm as very low indeed, because appropriate materials had been used with fire stopping in accordance with regulations:

https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/download/5c7388...

I would agree that it should be considered. But think it is pushing it to expect the Principal Designer to be responsible for catching the Architect or design sub-contractors specification errors. They cannot be an expert in all specialisms.

Doubtful if an architect would be competent to comment meaningfully on fire safety if the design is complex, would this not be the responsibility of the fire engineer?

The Principal Designer (was CDM-C) should ensure that design risk assessments are in place, the specialist designers having responsibility for each specific design risk assessment.

Agreed the Principal Designer has an obligation to ensure that other parties are carrying out their duties. They can't determine the competency of those parties because they don't appoint them. They can only advise the client if they have concerns.

Checking that risk assessments are produced and commenting on those is part of the above. However, in this situation it is unrealistic to hope that a Principal Designer would identify a specification failure by an architect or a miss-sold product. They might, but you can't rely on it.

Fire engineers are not engaged on the majority of projects. In my experience are only involved when some aspect of the building makes it difficult to comply with regulations and a more bespoke 'engineered' solution is required:

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BS_9999:...

I would suggest that the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, with it's single escape stair and the addition of gas distribution through compartments, would be one of those situations as the Building Regulations do not directly envisage some of the challenges that could arise.

I think it is reasonable to ask if the Architect or Principal Designer considered the need for a Fire Engineer or discussed it with the client.

[Elysium]

tleefox said:

Elysium said:

What you are missing is that products like these have been extensively tested, approved for use and used successfully for decades.

Wool carpet releases hydrogen cyanide when it burns.

Have they? The problem with situations like this is you only know the extent of the issue when the building catches fire - so you can't say they've been used successfully, as in practice, they've not been tested to failure.

Are there many buildings clad in wool carpet?

Yes they have. How many fires have you seen like this one? The rate of spread is unprecedented.

Almost every building contains blown foam insulation, if not in the walls or ceilings, then as pipe lagging. Architects and designers need to make sure they are selecting components that work for each situation, but its not realistic to suggest that any competent designer would automatically reject a PIR product because release hydrogen cyanide when it burns.

[FurtiveFreddy]

It seems to me lots of tests are being carried out by different people on the individual components of the cladding system.

Journalists are taking samples to fire testing labs and then broadcasting results which could be very misleading or just plain wrong.

As I said earlier, what's needed is a test rig to be built using the actual components taken from undamaged areas of the tower.
Are the Police/LFB/LA/Independent testers doing this?

it must be the only sure way to understand what happened and what needs to change?

[Elysium]

rscott said:

austinsmirk said:

tim0409 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to draft in the Army, and have a "fire warden" on each floor; much less hassle/less expensive...just a thought.

I thought this. And me being me, why not use a job seeker to sit on each floor if they wish to receive benefits each week for doing nothing.

Must admit I visited a 12th flr flat in a 14 storey block on Friday. There is never a situation where I could imagine living in a flat or at that height. Really didn't like the fact there's no easy way out.

Can't imagine the horror of being trapped in the 20th floor, poor people.

As others have already said, if the building isn't up to standard then the fire certificate will be withdrawn -
this invalidates the insurance.

Fire Certificates have not existed for years. They were replaced with Fire Risk Assessments.

There is no retrospective 'standard' for existing buildings.

Insurance is only invalidated if it includes specific conditions that have been breached (for example prohibitions on the use of deleterious materials)

This is a risk assessment decision by the landlord. The only insurance implications are for public liability.

[Vipers]

Elysium said:

rscott said:

austinsmirk said:

tim0409 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to draft in the Army, and have a "fire warden" on each floor; much less hassle/less expensive...just a thought.

I thought this. And me being me, why not use a job seeker to sit on each floor if they wish to receive benefits each week for doing nothing.

Must admit I visited a 12th flr flat in a 14 storey block on Friday. There is never a situation where I could imagine living in a flat or at that height. Really didn't like the fact there's no easy way out.

Can't imagine the horror of being trapped in the 20th floor, poor people.

As others have already said, if the building isn't up to standard then the fire certificate will be withdrawn -
this invalidates the insurance.

Fire Certificates have not existed for years. They were replaced with Fire Risk Assessments.

There is no retrospective 'standard' for existing buildings.

Insurance is only invalidated if it includes specific conditions that have been breached (for example prohibitions on the use of deleterious materials)

This is a risk assessment decision by the landlord. The only insurance implications are for public liability.

The risk assessment is only as much good as a bloody hairnet in a force nine gale when money is involved me thinks.

Wasn't there a mention of someone using others rather than the fire brigade as they were too stringent.

I am wondering about the 27 blocks on the news just now found to have substandard cladding if the same contractor is involved.

[rscott]

Elysium said:

Fire Certificates have not existed for years. They were replaced with Fire Risk Assessments.

There is no retrospective 'standard' for existing buildings.

Insurance is only invalidated if it includes specific conditions that have been breached (for example prohibitions on the use of deleterious materials)

This is a risk assessment decision by the landlord. The only insurance implications are for public liability.

Apologies - that'll teach me to listen to local radio news...

Independent confirms it's because fire service/council assessment found problems and they couldn't guarantee safety- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cam...

[saaby93]

rscott said:

Apologies - that'll teach me to listen to local radio news...

Independent confirms it's because fire service/council assessment found problems and they couldn't guarantee safety- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cam...

You can never guarantee safety, all you can do is minimise risk. Insurers can take on the risk and trade off premiums vs likely payouts

[gooner1]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/...

[Collectingbrass]

V8 Fettler said:

Elysium said:

tleefox said:

Not sure if this has already been discussed but has anyone found the CDM Co-ordinator yet? If I was he / she I'd probably be asking my friends if I could borrow a shotgun about now.

I don't think the CDMC (or Principal Designer as it is now) can be blamed here. They don't specify anything or assess Building Control compliance. In fact they don't even need to visit the site.

They just prepare pre-construction information, comment on the Health and Safety Plan, recieve and review designers risk assessments and help to collate the Health and Safety File.

It's a process role more than anything and their focus on operational hazards is usually around maintenance. I wouldn't expect them to be a backstop for incorrectly specified or, as it currently appears might be the case, fraudulently sold materials.

The design risk assessment for the cladding should have indicated the raised level of risk created by the new cladding.

The DRA is only intended to tell the Contractor installing the cladding if there were specific risks in the design or the site that a competant & experienced contractor would not be expected to be aware of.

The Principal Contractor's Safety File and the Designer's fire engineering design should have communicated the fire risk and fire risk management measures required as a result to the building owner and occupier.

Well, that's the theory anyway...

In reality the CDMC role, especially on council & social housing work, is usually done by the Architect or Project Manager / Contract Administrator for additional fee with little extra resource utilised. I know, I sat the multiple choice exam for the Planning Superviosrs guild (or what ever they were & are now) and I've done it in the past alongside PM/CA. I suspect this will change if the application of or adherence to the CDM process is found to be at fault at Grenfell.

[Oakey]

I see the Independent are now moaning that the social tenants in these 'luxury developments' don't get to use the amenities that the private owners / tenants get as well as claims of 'segregation', etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gre...

[nyxster]

Willy Nilly said:

Don't architects just make buildings look nice? It's the civil engineers that make them work, a bit like asking Chris Bangle about how cars survive crashes

Chris Bangle: 'simples, make the car ugly enough that nobody buys them, then there are no crashes.'

[Gecko1978]

Oakey said:

I see the Independent are now moaning that the social tenants in these 'luxury developments' don't get to use the amenities that the private owners / tenants get as well as claims of 'segregation', etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gre...

Apprently they have to use "poor doors" or as you might describe it the door to your part of the building. There was bound to be a split between social an private amenities its just a good thing the people have been housed quickly in good quality acconodation. Even if in comparison to homes nearby its not the same

[Elysium]

Vipers said:

Elysium said:

rscott said:

austinsmirk said:

tim0409 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to draft in the Army, and have a "fire warden" on each floor; much less hassle/less expensive...just a thought.

I thought this. And me being me, why not use a job seeker to sit on each floor if they wish to receive benefits each week for doing nothing.

Must admit I visited a 12th flr flat in a 14 storey block on Friday. There is never a situation where I could imagine living in a flat or at that height. Really didn't like the fact there's no easy way out.

Can't imagine the horror of being trapped in the 20th floor, poor people.

As others have already said, if the building isn't up to standard then the fire certificate will be withdrawn -
this invalidates the insurance.

Fire Certificates have not existed for years. They were replaced with Fire Risk Assessments.

There is no retrospective 'standard' for existing buildings.

Insurance is only invalidated if it includes specific conditions that have been breached (for example prohibitions on the use of deleterious materials)

This is a risk assessment decision by the landlord. The only insurance implications are for public liability.

The risk assessment is only as much good as a bloody hairnet in a force nine gale when money is involved me thinks.

Wasn't there a mention of someone using others rather than the fire brigade as they were too stringent.

I am wondering about the 27 blocks on the news just now found to have substandard cladding if the same contractor is involved.

The fire brigade don't do any fire risk assessments. They are usually procured by the landlord or tenant using specialist consultants.

These refurbished buildings will have also had fire strategies, which were used to inform design decisions. They are perhaps more relevant here. However they are probably gathering dust somewhere in the councils office

[GloverMart]

Oakey said:

I see the Independent are now moaning that the social tenants in these 'luxury developments' don't get to use the amenities that the private owners / tenants get as well as claims of 'segregation', etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gre...

Earlier in the week, the Independent confidently stated that the social tenants would be moving into the same block as the private owners/tenants have. They even mocked up a picture with a carefully placed plant that hid the social housing block that will be used.... what a farce that paper is.

[Vipers]

Elysium said:

Vipers said:

Elysium said:

rscott said:

austinsmirk said:

tim0409 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to draft in the Army, and have a "fire warden" on each floor; much less hassle/less expensive...just a thought.

I thought this. And me being me, why not use a job seeker to sit on each floor if they wish to receive benefits each week for doing nothing.

Must admit I visited a 12th flr flat in a 14 storey block on Friday. There is never a situation where I could imagine living in a flat or at that height. Really didn't like the fact there's no easy way out.

Can't imagine the horror of being trapped in the 20th floor, poor people.

As others have already said, if the building isn't up to standard then the fire certificate will be withdrawn -
this invalidates the insurance.

Fire Certificates have not existed for years. They were replaced with Fire Risk Assessments.

There is no retrospective 'standard' for existing buildings.

Insurance is only invalidated if it includes specific conditions that have been breached (for example prohibitions on the use of deleterious materials)

This is a risk assessment decision by the landlord. The only insurance implications are for public liability.

The risk assessment is only as much good as a bloody hairnet in a force nine gale when money is involved me thinks.

Wasn't there a mention of someone using others rather than the fire brigade as they were too stringent.

I am wondering about the 27 blocks on the news just now found to have substandard cladding if the same contractor is involved.

The fire brigade don't do any fire risk assessments. They are usually procured by the landlord or tenant using specialist consultants.

These refurbished buildings will have also had fire strategies, which were used to inform design decisions. They are perhaps more relevant here

Odd that 27 have just failed.

[spaximus]

GloverMart said:

Oakey said:

I see the Independent are now moaning that the social tenants in these 'luxury developments' don't get to use the amenities that the private owners / tenants get as well as claims of 'segregation', etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gre...

Earlier in the week, the Independent confidently stated that the social tenants would be moving into the same block as the private owners/tenants have. They even mocked up a picture with a carefully placed plant that hid the social housing block that will be used.... what a farce that paper is.

Now the feeling has changed after the fire, many have been swept along with the feeling that all these people who died were put in tiny boxes that rich people hated looking at and died as a result of that.

They have swallowed the line they died because they are poor and on one cares about the poor, except Jeremy. So we have this headlong rush to prove that it isn't fair and we must now give everyone the same.

When I was a kid, even then people who did not work got the worse housing stock. Those in work got the homes they needed and took a pride in them. All this crap about them all being scum is laughable, the vast majority are not but now many feel they have pricked the conscience of the nation and are filling their boots.

Those who have worked and bought flats in that development have a right to all the amenities they have paid for, those next door do not have those rights. As for they want gardens for kids to play in, there are parks around them but no they want the ones owned by the other tenants for free.

Everyone should have a decent home, that does not include gardens, gyms, swimming pools free next door.