Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
Kermit power said:
This wasn't an in depth look at the fire resistance of external cladding, but listening to the podcast this morning (rather chillingly, the original broadcast was 13 hours before the Grenfell Tower fire), it was, with hindsight, staggeringly obvious that putting flammable substances all over the outside of a tall building had to be questionable at best.
I think a number of posters have now confirmed that the panels werent flammableWell, it was certainly tragic for many families, but the current frothing over what is an isolated building fire is astounding. As said above, people are rehoused all the time when there are floods or other issues.
I wonder how many people will have been affected and how many claims there will be for £5,500...
I wonder how many people will have been affected and how many claims there will be for £5,500...
sone said:
heebeegeetee said:
alfie2244 said:
heebeegeetee said:
On another tack, and forgive me if its been discussed, haven't followed all the thread, but I believe there is a suspicion that a crime has taken place here, so would it be right to question why people haven't been placed under arrest, passports seized, offices secured etc etc?
Who would you suggest?
It's a massive man-made disaster, I don't see any harm or wrong in just making sure that the people who might need to be spoken to are told to stick around.
Blaster72 said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
If that external cladding was combustible and did release flammable gasses, and also had aluminium backing to it then once alight, the moment the fire brigade started squirting water on to the panels, it would have accelerated the combustion of the aluminium and made the fire worse. This last paragraph though is dependent on how much aluminium was used.
Maybe I'm misreading that but are you saying water cannot be used to put out this type of fire? I thought it was magnesium that reacted that way??heebeegeetee said:
No, I'd just like to see some steps taken to ensure people don't leave and evidence doesn't disappear.
It's a massive man-made disaster, I don't see any harm or wrong in just making sure that the people who might need to be spoken to are told to stick around.
Where they going to go to? Are you really advocating taking passports of anyone that just "might" have some useful information? Why not suggest they are locked up just in case they do a runner?It's a massive man-made disaster, I don't see any harm or wrong in just making sure that the people who might need to be spoken to are told to stick around.
Blaster72 said:
ALawson said:
Blaster72 said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
If that external cladding was combustible and did release flammable gasses, and also had aluminium backing to it then once alight, the moment the fire brigade started squirting water on to the panels, it would have accelerated the combustion of the aluminium and made the fire worse. This last paragraph though is dependent on how much aluminium was used.
Maybe I'm misreading that but are you saying water cannot be used to put out this type of fire? I thought it was magnesium that reacted that way??My FIL is an insurance risk assessor and told me about a serious explosion where a firm had been cutting/grinding aluminium and then a spark hit a large pile of the dust. Two fatalities.
speedking31 said:
saaby93 said:
55palfers said:
Interesting article here from those zany H&S bods.
https://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/grenfell-tow...
according to HSE - the outer (rainscreen) cladding seems to be plastichttps://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/grenfell-tow...
hsedoc said:
The cladding system used Celotex RR5000 rigid polyisocyanurate foam (PIR) insulation, the charred remains of which can be seen in photos of the burned out tower, and a “rainscreen” layer of “Reynobond PE” panels, containing flammable polyethylene.
but the manufacturer says thats attached to aluminium panelsarconic said:
Reynobond PE features a polyethylene core that adds strength and rigidity to the coil-coated aluminum panels.
assuming coil is a typo for foilThis data sheet says the aluminium is 0.5 mm thick.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=...
There is a section through a panel here:
https://www.arconic.com/aap/north_america/catalog/...
It consists of two sheets of 0.5mm aluminium wrapped around a PE core. Overall panel widths are 4-6mm, so the PE core will be max 5mm thick. The purpose of the panel is simply to keep the rain off the thicker Celotex insulation in the cavity between the original concrete facade and the reynobond.
Ceramics are formed by melting sand in fire - so they've been already "burned" so to speak and won't burn again. That's why the Space Shuttle was covered in ceramic tiles.
I'm sure there must be pretty much fireproof materials that technically could be used as "cladding". The problem is in cost. The Shuttle tiles were notoriously expensive, difficult to apply - and also tended to be damaged by water - so not very suitable for a long term application on a building.
I'm sure there must be pretty much fireproof materials that technically could be used as "cladding". The problem is in cost. The Shuttle tiles were notoriously expensive, difficult to apply - and also tended to be damaged by water - so not very suitable for a long term application on a building.
Globs said:
Elysium said:
Everything is flammable at some point.
Not really no, basic chemistry tells us that fire is oxidation: ever tried to set fire to rust (Iron oxide) or sand (Silicon dioxide)?There are a number of available, well proven building materials that do not burn.
The question you should be asking when selecting materials is the extent to which they add to the 'fire load' of the building.
ALawson said:
Blaster72 said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
If that external cladding was combustible and did release flammable gasses, and also had aluminium backing to it then once alight, the moment the fire brigade started squirting water on to the panels, it would have accelerated the combustion of the aluminium and made the fire worse. This last paragraph though is dependent on how much aluminium was used.
Maybe I'm misreading that but are you saying water cannot be used to put out this type of fire? I thought it was magnesium that reacted that way??speedking31 said:
Perhaps plastic coated with aluminium foil, which would explain a lot.
This data sheet says the aluminium is 0.5 mm thick.
That isn't aluminium foil, that's quite thick foil/thin sheeting. 0.5mm is same grain size as the aluminium in this video...(shows how ferocious aluminium burns)This data sheet says the aluminium is 0.5 mm thick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M0sjPg_ii0
In answer to the first question, yes - all metal fires cannot be extinguished with water.
Reviewing earlier posts, the foam was an isocyanate based foam, plus the aluminium, plus the added plastic (hydrocarbon) and mix in the oxygen in the air is in fact a similar recipe (but vastly incorrect ratio's) to a type of solid rocket fuel. I'll see if I can find a web link but unsurprisingly, precise recipe's for rocket fuel isn't available online but from memory it consisted of powdered aluminium, micro flakes of polythene-type polymer, a s
t tonne of ammonium perchlorate and an isocyanate/nitrile binding agent. Very similar composition can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellantIt is apparent to me now, that the same ingredients were in this cladding, just in different proportions. But if someone walked up to me in my lab and said "Hey Wiccy I got this idea for thermal panels, they're aluminium, polythene with insulating isocyanate middle and they sit on the side of a building with air gaps" my first response would be "Hmmm whilst there's no oxidising agent in that lot, replace the oxidising agent with the oxygen in the air and that's the same ingredients used in solid fuel booster rockets". But sadly, as Michael Gove once famously said, "We've had enough of experts".
Other posters have been crucial in reaching this conclusion as I have no experience in construction so their information has been invaluable. The crucial bit was the quantity of aluminium used.
Chemistry and science does not lie. The entire industry needs taking to task on this. As for sprinklers, probably better to have them on the outside of the building.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
Chemistry and science does not lie. The entire industry needs taking to task on this. As for sprinklers, probably better to have them on the outside of the building.
if burning means rapid oxidisation a previous post said that sprinkling water on it would be less than helpfulWiccan of Darkness said:
In answer to the first question, yes - all metal fires cannot be extinguished with water.
Reviewing earlier posts, the foam was an isocyanate based foam, plus the aluminium, plus the added plastic (hydrocarbon) and mix in the oxygen in the air is in fact a similar recipe (but vastly incorrect ratio's) to a type of solid rocket fuel. I'll see if I can find a web link but unsurprisingly, precise recipe's for rocket fuel isn't available online but from memory it consisted of powdered aluminium, micro flakes of polythene-type polymer, a st tonne of ammonium perchlorate and an isocyanate/nitrile binding agent. Very similar composition can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant
It is apparent to me now, that the same ingredients were in this cladding, just in different proportions. But if someone walked up to me in my lab and said "Hey Wiccy I got this idea for thermal panels, they're aluminium, polythene with insulating isocyanate middle and they sit on the side of a building with air gaps" my first response would be "Hmmm whilst there's no oxidising agent in that lot, replace the oxidising agent with the oxygen in the air and that's the same ingredients used in solid fuel booster rockets". But sadly, as Michael Gove once famously said, "We've had enough of experts".
Other posters have been crucial in reaching this conclusion as I have no experience in construction so their information has been invaluable. The crucial bit was the quantity of aluminium used.
Chemistry and science does not lie. The entire industry needs taking to task on this. As for sprinklers, probably better to have them on the outside of the building.
This has similarities with the incendiary paint hypothesis put forward to explain the rapid combustion of the skin of the airship Hindenburg. Reviewing earlier posts, the foam was an isocyanate based foam, plus the aluminium, plus the added plastic (hydrocarbon) and mix in the oxygen in the air is in fact a similar recipe (but vastly incorrect ratio's) to a type of solid rocket fuel. I'll see if I can find a web link but unsurprisingly, precise recipe's for rocket fuel isn't available online but from memory it consisted of powdered aluminium, micro flakes of polythene-type polymer, a s
t tonne of ammonium perchlorate and an isocyanate/nitrile binding agent. Very similar composition can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellantIt is apparent to me now, that the same ingredients were in this cladding, just in different proportions. But if someone walked up to me in my lab and said "Hey Wiccy I got this idea for thermal panels, they're aluminium, polythene with insulating isocyanate middle and they sit on the side of a building with air gaps" my first response would be "Hmmm whilst there's no oxidising agent in that lot, replace the oxidising agent with the oxygen in the air and that's the same ingredients used in solid fuel booster rockets". But sadly, as Michael Gove once famously said, "We've had enough of experts".
Other posters have been crucial in reaching this conclusion as I have no experience in construction so their information has been invaluable. The crucial bit was the quantity of aluminium used.
Chemistry and science does not lie. The entire industry needs taking to task on this. As for sprinklers, probably better to have them on the outside of the building.
The fabric used to cover Zeppelins like the Hinendburg was painted with aluminium dope - which is why they were silver in colour.
The Solid Rocket Boosters of the Space Shuttle used aluminium oxide as one of the ingredients of the solid fuel.
Normal aluminium sheeting will melt and burn at around 400 degrees C.
The Solid Rocket Boosters of the Space Shuttle used aluminium oxide as one of the ingredients of the solid fuel.
Normal aluminium sheeting will melt and burn at around 400 degrees C.
saaby93 said:
Kermit power said:
This wasn't an in depth look at the fire resistance of external cladding, but listening to the podcast this morning (rather chillingly, the original broadcast was 13 hours before the Grenfell Tower fire), it was, with hindsight, staggeringly obvious that putting flammable substances all over the outside of a tall building had to be questionable at best.
I think a number of posters have now confirmed that the panels werent flammableWiccan of Darkness said:
ALawson said:
Blaster72 said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
If that external cladding was combustible and did release flammable gasses, and also had aluminium backing to it then once alight, the moment the fire brigade started squirting water on to the panels, it would have accelerated the combustion of the aluminium and made the fire worse. This last paragraph though is dependent on how much aluminium was used.
Maybe I'm misreading that but are you saying water cannot be used to put out this type of fire? I thought it was magnesium that reacted that way??speedking31 said:
Perhaps plastic coated with aluminium foil, which would explain a lot.
This data sheet says the aluminium is 0.5 mm thick.
That isn't aluminium foil, that's quite thick foil/thin sheeting. 0.5mm is same grain size as the aluminium in this video...(shows how ferocious aluminium burns)This data sheet says the aluminium is 0.5 mm thick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M0sjPg_ii0
In answer to the first question, yes - all metal fires cannot be extinguished with water.
Reviewing earlier posts, the foam was an isocyanate based foam, plus the aluminium, plus the added plastic (hydrocarbon) and mix in the oxygen in the air is in fact a similar recipe (but vastly incorrect ratio's) to a type of solid rocket fuel. I'll see if I can find a web link but unsurprisingly, precise recipe's for rocket fuel isn't available online but from memory it consisted of powdered aluminium, micro flakes of polythene-type polymer, a s
t tonne of ammonium perchlorate and an isocyanate/nitrile binding agent. Very similar composition can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellantIt is apparent to me now, that the same ingredients were in this cladding, just in different proportions. But if someone walked up to me in my lab and said "Hey Wiccy I got this idea for thermal panels, they're aluminium, polythene with insulating isocyanate middle and they sit on the side of a building with air gaps" my first response would be "Hmmm whilst there's no oxidising agent in that lot, replace the oxidising agent with the oxygen in the air and that's the same ingredients used in solid fuel booster rockets". But sadly, as Michael Gove once famously said, "We've had enough of experts".
Other posters have been crucial in reaching this conclusion as I have no experience in construction so their information has been invaluable. The crucial bit was the quantity of aluminium used.
Chemistry and science does not lie. The entire industry needs taking to task on this. As for sprinklers, probably better to have them on the outside of the building.
This document looks at the testing for the insulation used at Grenfell:
https://www.celotex.co.uk/assets/rainscreen-compli...
The tests were carried out with a fibre cement panel, not aluminium rainscreen. So the note on page 4 may be quite significant:
"The fire performance and classification report issued only relates to the components detailed and constructed in figure 4. Any changes to the components listed and construction method set out in figure 4 will need to be considered by the building designer."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff