Grenfell Tower - Celotex

A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.
I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering it with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone off the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to want to go in the attic.
--
Michael Chare

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:

Unlikely, since it wasnt.
In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.

Get some and put a blowtorch to it. Celotex insulation does not really burn.
The cladding, which is not used domestically, did.
Celotex on their website has documentation specifically warning users and designers to be aware of regulations concerning buildings 'with a storey height of over 18m'
They tested it as safe when used with cladding formed of mineral composites.
They did not test it with cladding formed of plastic foam sandwiched between thin aluminium or zinc sheets, that would bridge the fire stops.

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn, giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the flame from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take the blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume ratio performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/2017 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:

Celotex or Celotex FR5000? The former is Class 1, the latter Class 0.
When I fitted Celotex in the loft here I reckoned that by the time a fire had gone through the plasterboard into the loft I'd either be out or dead. And that the Victorian rafters and joists would go up like the proverbial in any event.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/17 12:25, Robin wrote:

whatever was fitted to my house
Tried to burn the scraps. No go.
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 12:25:10 PM UTC+1, Robin wrote:

Reynobond PE is Class 0 as well....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/2017 14:42, Adam Aglionby wrote:

But *only* in the UK where apparently different laws of physics and chemistry apply to in the rest of the world if the makers datasheet is to be believed. What this shows is that our fire testing standards are woefully inadequate (and seriously out of date). Also that architects here seem remarkably unaware of major high rise fire incidents overseas.
British Standard "Class 0" in this instance the BS stand for BullShit. I don't believe that they can have ever tested the PE variant or if they did then there is something fundamentally wrong with their methodology. Probably tested against a thick inert concrete wall...
There is another nasty in that with this Reynobond PE crap rated as UK Class 0 it can be used anywhere inside a building not just as cladding. In some locations that can compromise fire evacuation routes.
Even applying truly Class 0 rated material over walls covered in many old coats of paint can seriously compromise the fire rating (which is based on it being on a clean inert wall of plaster or concrete). See
http://www.hubdean.co.uk/fire-protection/what-is-class-0
Hammond was on yesterday claiming that "his understanding" was that the PE variant was banned on tall buildings in the UK too but that remains to be seen. If it was UK Class 0 just like the FR then I don't see how anyone can be prosecuted for taking that specification at face value.
(Even though good engineers ought to know that the stuff was flammable)

Fires can potentially start in the loft if a critter nibbles a mains cable and becomes a charred heating element as a result. ELCB usually kicks in at that point. Squirrels and rats are the worst for this.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This really is the point. I read on social media the next day the actual spec of this stuff and that it was banned for this use in other countries. So hardly a secret.
I must be alone in not understanding how anyone could be in the position of specifying such a material on a multi-million pound project and so out of touch. Sadly, the alternatives don't bear thinking about.
--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

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 Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:31:21 +0100, Martin Brown

Sadly it would seem Class O really means bugger all.
https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Certifications%20page_042014.pdf
http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/CertificateFiles/45/4510PS1i1.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/2017 12:25, Robin wrote:

I think the problem here is that when it is in forced ventilation and exposed to a massive radiant energy as it was on the side of the building all bets are off. It did survive remarkably well considering but it almost certainly added to the fuel load since in extremis it will burn/char (but plenty of charred bits remained on the building and had fallen to the ground where they went out).

Actually the heavy Victorian beams don't go up all that easily. It takes a lot of heat and time to get a 12x4 joist to catch light. It burns the corners off first and if the heat source is removed goes out again.
One reason for having some rodent control in lofts is they like to nibble the insulation off mains cables.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/17 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:

"Not really" means that at atmospeheric oxygen levels an endothermic reaction happens. I.e. it does not burn, It decomposes under heat.
So, too, does plasterboard and fireproof board. In fact so too does pretty much anything,
Burning means an exothermic reaction that is self sustaining in air.
like aluminium polyethylene foam panels, giving off a surprising amount of smoke...
--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Read page 2 of the Sunday Times.
Polyisocyanurate is fire-resistant but burns at high temperatures emitting deadly toxins including hydrogen cyanide.

Which does not contradict what is in the Sunday Times article.
--
Michael Chare

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/17 22:38, Michael Chare wrote:

what the fuck does the sunday times know?
even you dont know what 'burning' means

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read somewhere that Celotex supplied all the materials for the cladding. Now obviously they aren't to blame for supplying materials as ordered - but wonder if, as in the good old days before everything is done on a computer, that someone filling the order would have realised what it was to be used for and raised a warning?
--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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
wrote:

Celotex do not supply cladding, nor manufacture it, nor supply materials that could be used in its manufacture, but other than that your source was entirely accurate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True. It is simply a brand name of an insulation product. But its parent company Saint-Gobain makes a wide range of building materials, and it could be that's what was meant. I'd suggest you take it up with the broadcaster.
--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

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
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

Why should he "take it up with the broadcaster"? You're the fool that posted it here, you take it up with them for making you look an idiot. Oh crap - not their fault, you have always been one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's about the standard of the vast majority of the reporting on the Grenfell tower disaster.
--
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my
attitude, that's your problem.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I set some on fire quite easily with the sparks of a metal grinding disk when using an off-cut of Cellotex as a spark deflecter (thinking the stuff would be fireproof). The sparks were hitting the non-foiled end grain and I'm sure it actually had flames coming from it not to mention lots of quite nasty smoke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:

The last renovation work was visible, done to make the tower more presentable to the nearby nimby wealthy residents. The media have been directed to criticise this, taking the flak away from council failure specify install water tanks, install sprinklers, and perform regular maintenance.
Little to do with celotex.
Perhaps, there should be a contest to design heat resistant external stairwells, that could be retrofitted to old tower blocks. Celotex would probably be good for that.
--
Adrian C

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.