Grenfell and gas pipes.

On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any pros I heard interviewed.
Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.
So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.
Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well compromise that, if badly done.
--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2017 10:09 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

One source said they were welded steel pipes (perhaps seam welded with BSP taper fittings?). Should have been fairly fire resistant compared to soldered copper, at least until the fire really got going.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Plowman wrote:

Yes, as early as the morning after the fire, "gas pipes" in stairwell were being mentioned by residents.

That seemed to be the preferred scheme from several options, not seen anything which said it was definitely the one chosen.

Could easily be mistaken.

Even if they were water pipes, and the work wasn't completed, then there could be firestopping that was missed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire - showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the communal areas.
The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system. If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would help.
Of course it's possible that both were installed - the central system for the housing association flats and boilers for the privately owned ones.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry; welded steel.

--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been thrown in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

It would indeed. But the then the cladding was apparently changed later too.

Ah - never considered that one. I'd have thought the cost of installing individual units to a few flats where none existed before likely very high. Different if doing the entire block.
--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's likely to be a housing association tenant, so the private vs rental division I mentioned looks less likely.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have hot water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/07/2017 10:11, Roland Perry wrote:

The plot will continue to thicken..
however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building
*but*
the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.
The enquiry may say so if and when it reports. As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

The core wasn't designed to stop fire arriving through the windows on almost all flats on all floors simultaneously. That's a problem with the cladding.

If you have an erroneous preconception about the truth, then you are doomed to think that.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/07/2017 18:05, Roland Perry wrote:

AFAICS the core wasn't designed at all.
If a flat was on fire you should have been safe to move into the core and then go down the stairs and escape. It shouldn't matter that other flats were on fire.
A proper enquiry will find out why the core failed and so many couldn't get out. The cladding is a side issue and may well be hiding the real issues.
It doesn't really matter if a block of flats burns down if everyone can get out and that is the real issue.
Who is looking at what really killed the people while everyone is going on about the cladding?

Yes I can see why that is true.
This is the same issue as the twin towers, many people died because the core was a crap design and they were trapped. The planes didn't immediately destroy the buildings but they did destroy the poorly built stairs. The lifts were inside a structural concrete tube but the stairs were outside that and only protected by plasterboard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

People were told (in both the short and long term) to stay inside their flats and await rescue. But that only works if most of the flats aren't also on fire from the outside in.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/07/2017 19:54, Roland Perry wrote:

They weren't told to stay in their flats i they are on fire so they should have been able to walk out the door into a safe core and leave.
Something serious went wrong to prevent people from getting out and as going through the window wasn't an option the cladding didn't prevent it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

That is perhaps where the mixed messages cause a problem.

No doubt the enquiry will determine why the stairwell filled with smoke, but it wouldn't have taken very many doors from interior landings being propped open by debris[1] to fill it with smoke - once again it will have been designed for just one landing to have been on fire, not almost all of them simultaneously.
[1] There is one report circulating that a much earlier fire leaked smoke because the fire brigade's hoses had to breach those fire doors in order to extinguish a blaze in a flat.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roland Perry wrote:

The grenfell building has a dry riser with hydrants on each floor, so running hoses up the stairs and through doors shouldn't be necessary, but use of the dry riser requires parking a pump in one specific location at the base of the tower, and there were photos of vehicles/skips blocking that access during refurbishment ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in a different tower block (sorry if that wasn't clear)...

...and whose dry-riser outlets were only on every other floor.

And reports that even without temporary builders' crap, maybe the pumps couldn't get that close anyway.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roland Perry wrote:

The planning application access statement says
"The fire strategy for Grenfell Tower requires that the Fire Tender be parked close to the entrance to be able to connect to the dry riser in the lobby and pressurize the hydrants at each floor"
I suppose it may not be correct, but it doesn't say every other floor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remarked:

in a different tower block (sorry if that wasn't clear)... in a different tower block (sorry if that wasn't clear)... in a different tower block (sorry if that wasn't clear)...
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roland Perry wrote:

Yes I saw your later remark about it being a different tower, but your comment "every other floor" can be read as a direct reply to my "every floor" comment ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was an earlier remark.

No, that's what putting...
... in the middle of a sentence means.
--
Roland Perry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.