Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
GloverMart said:
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.
I think it's possible. The problem may well be widespread misunderstanding of the letter of the law of the building regs.The building regs require cladding to have "limited-combustibility insulation", but permit the external surface to be "class 0" combustible (or as an alternative, any materials can be used, if the overall construction can pass large scale testing).
Limited combustibility essentially means non-combustible apart from trace components such as paint, adhesive, binders, etc.
Class 0 refers to combustible materials with the lowest risk of fire spread. Both of these categories are laboratory tests conducted on small samples.
Many ACM rainscreen products are sold as BS 476 "class 0", indicating combustibility, but low risk of fire spread. So, you would think that these comply with the material requirements given above, provided a suitable limited combustibility insulation panel is used.
Wrong. The government's interpretation is that as a composite material, the external surface is aluminium which is non-combustible, but the polyethylene core filler is "insulation" (indeed, this is explicitly stated in the building regs - insulation includes "filler"). As a class 0 product, the cladding core is non-compliant with the materials requirements of the regulations.
WatchfulEye said:
I think it's possible. The problem may well be widespread misunderstanding of the letter of the law of the building regs.
The building regs require cladding to have "limited-combustibility insulation", but permit the external surface to be "class 0" combustible (or as an alternative, any materials can be used, if the overall construction can pass large scale testing).
Limited combustibility essentially means non-combustible apart from trace components such as paint, adhesive, binders, etc.
Class 0 refers to combustible materials with the lowest risk of fire spread. Both of these categories are laboratory tests conducted on small samples.
Many ACM rainscreen products are sold as BS 476 "class 0", indicating combustibility, but low risk of fire spread. So, you would think that these comply with the material requirements given above, provided a suitable limited combustibility insulation panel is used.
Wrong. The government's interpretation is that as a composite material, the external surface is aluminium which is non-combustible, but the polyethylene core filler is "insulation" (indeed, this is explicitly stated in the building regs - insulation includes "filler"). As a class 0 product, the cladding core is non-compliant with the materials requirements of the regulations.
And that, presumably if proved correct, would nullify insurance, and chance of compensation and the suing of 3rd parties, yes?The building regs require cladding to have "limited-combustibility insulation", but permit the external surface to be "class 0" combustible (or as an alternative, any materials can be used, if the overall construction can pass large scale testing).
Limited combustibility essentially means non-combustible apart from trace components such as paint, adhesive, binders, etc.
Class 0 refers to combustible materials with the lowest risk of fire spread. Both of these categories are laboratory tests conducted on small samples.
Many ACM rainscreen products are sold as BS 476 "class 0", indicating combustibility, but low risk of fire spread. So, you would think that these comply with the material requirements given above, provided a suitable limited combustibility insulation panel is used.
Wrong. The government's interpretation is that as a composite material, the external surface is aluminium which is non-combustible, but the polyethylene core filler is "insulation" (indeed, this is explicitly stated in the building regs - insulation includes "filler"). As a class 0 product, the cladding core is non-compliant with the materials requirements of the regulations.
The problem with living in multi storey accommodation , is that a person is only as safe as the safety standard's applied (if at all), by the dumbest occupants of such a building.
A recent report showed that the occupants of one tower block tried to dispose of a settee, via the waste chute, because they could not be bothered to carry it down to the ground floor , they broke it into pieces and shoved it down the waste chute, and when the chute got blocked by the pieces, their solution was to pour a flammable liquid down the chute, in an attempt to `burn' out the blockage.
The fact that Grenfell tower is still standing, is that it, like many of the older style tower blocks, was built in reinforced concrete, heaven help people who have to live in multi storey blocks built in timber frame construction. Many modern hotels are built in timber frame construction, so if a person finds themselves in one it would be a good idea to check the ways out of the building in case of fire. Historically following the great fire of London (it was just one of many) the first ever building regulations were introduced aimed at reducing the risk of another such fire taking place, by introducing masonry walls, and roof coverings (clay plain tiles) for new buildings in London, instead of the timber frame and thatch construction used previously. Fire safety is now covered by Approved Document B, Fire safety used to be the first part of the Regs, but it was felt that it would be pointless worrying about fire, if the building itself was not structurally sound in the first place. therefore structural stability is covered by the first of the Approved Documents AD-A.
A recent report showed that the occupants of one tower block tried to dispose of a settee, via the waste chute, because they could not be bothered to carry it down to the ground floor , they broke it into pieces and shoved it down the waste chute, and when the chute got blocked by the pieces, their solution was to pour a flammable liquid down the chute, in an attempt to `burn' out the blockage.
The fact that Grenfell tower is still standing, is that it, like many of the older style tower blocks, was built in reinforced concrete, heaven help people who have to live in multi storey blocks built in timber frame construction. Many modern hotels are built in timber frame construction, so if a person finds themselves in one it would be a good idea to check the ways out of the building in case of fire. Historically following the great fire of London (it was just one of many) the first ever building regulations were introduced aimed at reducing the risk of another such fire taking place, by introducing masonry walls, and roof coverings (clay plain tiles) for new buildings in London, instead of the timber frame and thatch construction used previously. Fire safety is now covered by Approved Document B, Fire safety used to be the first part of the Regs, but it was felt that it would be pointless worrying about fire, if the building itself was not structurally sound in the first place. therefore structural stability is covered by the first of the Approved Documents AD-A.
BlackLabel said:
Vipers said:
Tabloids are talking about having to evacuate up to 14,000 people, and caling for a state of emergency, where on earth can you rehouse 14,000 people, think it's Camden council have shelled out £500,000 for ONE night for accommodation,
Money isnt a problem, just cut foreign aid and be done with it.
If those numbers are true it's going to be a logistical nightmare.Money isnt a problem, just cut foreign aid and be done with it.
Mothballed military barracks or tent city have got to be the only options that do not involve either truly insane expenditure or it genuinely becoming necessary to requisition uninhabited property, which is a can of worms probably best left for far worse times than these…
The Spruce goose said:
on radio 4 an expert said they aren't illegal, as there is no real fire standard safety for exterior cladding , it covered insulation and cavity filler. very interesting then maybe not clear who to blame.
Apart from the requirements laid out in section 12.6 and Diagram 40 of Approved Document B, which requires above 18m to be Class 0 (National) or Euroclass B. Alternatively, compliance with BR135 (BRE Report Fire Performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings) for cladding systems using full scale test data from BS 8414-1 Interestingly, I note that BSi have issued new versions of the BS8414-1 Fire performance of external cladding systems. Test method for non-loadbearing external cladding systems applied to the masonry face of a building (incorporating corrigendum No. 1) published on 23rd June 2017. The title indicates the addition of a new Annex, A1. It's not on IHS yet.
I could type many offensive words to describe how I feel about John McDonnell's and his comments today.
I hope he gets referred to the standards committee for them.
He is not, contrary to his own arrogance the investigator, juror and judge, he is a politician and should campaign for legal changes that are recommended by the public inquiry, that is his job.
What an asshole.
FlyingMeeces said:
Mothballed military barracks or tent city have got to be the only options that do not involve either truly insane expenditure or it genuinely becoming necessary to requisition uninhabited property, which is a can of worms probably best left for far worse times than these…
gooner1 said:
FlyingMeeces said:
Mothballed military barracks or tent city have got to be the only options that do not involve either truly insane expenditure or it genuinely becoming necessary to requisition uninhabited property, which is a can of worms probably best left for far worse times than these…
Argh. Point. My instinct says there's probably a good few knocking about, but whether that translates into anything even remotely usable, for a load of different factors, is another thing entirely.
I feel guiltily relieved that I haven't managed to move back to London yet. It's almost like survivor's guilt. Whole thing's horrific. Carl_Manchester said:
John McDonnell'
:
he is a politician and should campaign for legal changes that are recommended by the public inquiry, that is his job.
In my experience 99% of politicians all have exactly one job, and for all of them it's the same job and never changes: :
he is a politician and should campaign for legal changes that are recommended by the public inquiry, that is his job.
To get re-elected.
plfrench said:
The Spruce goose said:
on radio 4 an expert said they aren't illegal, as there is no real fire standard safety for exterior cladding , it covered insulation and cavity filler. very interesting then maybe not clear who to blame.
Apart from the requirements laid out in section 12.6 and Diagram 40 of Approved Document B, which requires above 18m to be Class 0 (National) or Euroclass B. Alternatively, compliance with BR135 (BRE Report Fire Performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings) for cladding systems using full scale test data from BS 8414-1 Interestingly, I note that BSi have issued new versions of the BS8414-1 Fire performance of external cladding systems. Test method for non-loadbearing external cladding systems applied to the masonry face of a building (incorporating corrigendum No. 1) published on 23rd June 2017. The title indicates the addition of a new Annex, A1. It's not on IHS yet.
Couldn't copy it but it is the little paragraph at the begining....
Fish said:
The above is GUIDANCE as to one way of meeting the building standards, the only legal bit is the bit at the beginning which says:
Couldn't copy it but it is the little paragraph at the begining....
Well yes in theory, although in reality you would need a damn good means of demonstrating compliance with B4. (1) if not working to guidance of ADB...Couldn't copy it but it is the little paragraph at the begining....
External fire spread
B4. (1)
The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.
Edited by plfrench on Monday 26th June 20:47
plfrench said:
Fish said:
The above is GUIDANCE as to one way of meeting the building standards, the only legal bit is the bit at the beginning which says:
Couldn't copy it but it is the little paragraph at the begining....
Well yes in theory, although in reality you would need a damn good means of demonstrating compliance with B4. (1) if not working to guidance of ADB...Couldn't copy it but it is the little paragraph at the begining....
Eternal fire spread
B4. (1)
The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.
It's not directly relevant in this debate, but if you place sprinklers in a building then Part B can be bent inside out.
plfrench said:
Apart from the requirements laid out in section 12.6 and Diagram 40 of Approved Document B, which requires above 18m to be Class 0 (National) or Euroclass B. Alternatively, compliance with BR135 (BRE Report Fire Performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings) for cladding systems using full scale test data from BS 8414-1
You missed section 12.7. If the cladding contains a filler (as ACM does), then the filler must satisfy the limited combustibility criterion (assuming you don't want to use the alternative methods of compliance).See the guidance letter to local authorities:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
DCLG said:
For the avoidance of doubt; the core (filler) within an Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) is an “insulation
material/product”, “insulation product”, and/or “filler material” as referred to in Paragraph 12.7 (“Insulation
Materials/Products”) in Section 12 “Construction of external walls” of Approved Document B (Fire safety) Volume 2
material/product”, “insulation product”, and/or “filler material” as referred to in Paragraph 12.7 (“Insulation
Materials/Products”) in Section 12 “Construction of external walls” of Approved Document B (Fire safety) Volume 2
Fish said:
The above is GUIDANCE as to one way of meeting the building standards, the only legal bit is the bit at the beginning which says:
Couldn't copy it but it is the little paragraph at the begining....
this is the guy, director of window and cladding body.Couldn't copy it but it is the little paragraph at the begining....
from 41:00
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08vwmxf#play
''the building regulations are not properly understood''
43:00
''in terms of cladding it is not clear...it doesn't have to be of a non combustible material.. as this refers to filler, insulation.''
''the test is for the whole system wall, cladding etc, allows for use of combustive products, but this,(the towers)combustible cladding and insulation were used.''
apologies for quoting poorly listen yourself.
Bloke on the news earlier who's wife died and he couldn't get to the funeral because his passport and everything else has been destroyed. As it turned out the Home Office pulled it out of the bag for him and got him a new passport. So, when you've had all of your paper work destroyed, which makes it hard to prove who you are, how do you go about getting your paper work back in order?
Willy Nilly said:
Bloke on the news earlier who's wife died and he couldn't get to the funeral because his passport and everything else has been destroyed. As it turned out the Home Office pulled it out of the bag for him and got him a new passport. So, when you've had all of your paper work destroyed, which makes it hard to prove who you are, how do you go about getting your paper work back in order?
Dont understand how he couldnt go to a funeral without his passport?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff