Ot: Or not. tower fire...

[Martin Brown]

I saw it too on Newsnight but I did wonder if they had got their facts right. They reported the cladding as a 6mm (sic) aluminium covered blown polyethylene foam. PE is a waxy thermoplastic and in an established fire would drip molten plastic aka liquid fire downwards as well as flames upwards (this did not appear to happen - the fire mostly went upwards).

iPlayer is down at the minute or I would post links.

But what I saw on 10pm BBC News was stuff charred on the ground that looked to me more like 60mm brown rigid polyurethane foam which is cross linked and doesn't melt in a fire (but it burns really well).

I took another look at the image posted yesterday and I think I can see how the fire managed to run so quickly. There is a chimney inadvertently built into the fins on the side of the building. Look at the place where the cladding is incomplete on the left hand side. There is a ~15cm triangular void running up the inside on each of the fins.

Also it looks to me like under the space frame there is ~60mm alu coated rigid foam insulation *in addition* to the exterior rainproof cladding. There is also a tear on the aluminium foil which would be all it takes for fire to get that first hold on the flammable material inside.

My hunch is that the exterior cosmetic rain cladding is not at fault. The fire problem stems from the rigid foam insulation behind it and clearly visible in this image where the outer layer is absent.

Flexible PU furniture foam these days by law must have fire inhibitors in it, but I wonder what regulations apply to building cladding?

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the fire certification system for cladding. The stuff was allegedly "fire retardant" but it certainly didn't look that way in a real fire.

One experiment I would like to see done is take some undamaged panels and insulation off the building, attach it to a wall at the right distance and then try to light one corner of it with a blowtorch.

It will be very instructive to see what happens. I am sure the fire brigade testers will do something like this at the earliest opportunity.

I suspect it can stand a great deal of heat at the centre of a panel but if an edge or corner is not properly sealed then all bets are off.

[Capitol]

It doesn't appear to be a subcontractor problem. The Admiralty found out the hard way that ships with aluminium superstructure burn uncontrollably. There appears to be a fundamental engineering failure in the product design. I first read in the Sun that the cladding fire problem had occurred years before, but the problems were ignored. Apparently the cladding is available with better fire resistance and steel facing for more money.

[Capitol]

Yes, this was the objective, unfortunately using the wrong product. The fire service appears to not have registered the previous fire experiences and taken action.

[Andy Burns]

Presumably 0.6mm

Looks like a hexagonal honeycomb in some of their documentation

There were definitely something dripping down in flames in the earliest mobile footage.

Yes, I think there was foil faced PIR between the old concrete facade and the new alu/PE composite panel.

That certainly burns and chars if there's a flame playing on it.

Yes, the main concrete/rebar columns of the original building were rotated 45° to look "different" so the cladding had to go around them.

The cladding manufacturer makes an "FR" version as well as a "PE" version, I've not looked into the rules, but "Class 0" with "limited flammability" seems to be a phrase bandied about.

There do seem to be enough undamaged ones to allow some tests like that, as well as seeing if all installation details were followed, e.g. it some of the diagrams show a compressed foam gasket, EPDM layers and silicone beads as air seal behind the insulation, were any missed, or misapplied?

[charles]

according to The Times it was managed by Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation who took over the management of the Council's housing stock in 1996.

[Tim Watts]

Clad buildings have been going up in smoke in Dubai and France on one or more occasions in the past. It is a *known* problem.

[Martin Brown]

A fully laden fire engine just engages a low gear and moves forward slowly it doesn't need to ram anything to move it out of the way. A few scratches and bumper dints was all they did to the one I saw.

ISTR firemen of my acquaintance reckon they are already immune if they are doing what they deem necessary to save lives or put out a fire.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Martin Brown escribió:

Yes. You can see it more clearly in the bottom right hand corner of the image, where it's been cut to fit around some brackets, presumably the hangers for the exterior cladding.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Andy Burns escribió:

UPVC windows? You can see partially melted ones in some of the aftermath pics.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 09:35:28 on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, charles remarked:

These are normally known as "Housing Associations". We have one managing the public housing in my town (but no tower blocks).

[Roland Perry]

In message , at

17:31:22 on Wed, 14 Jun 2017, [e-mail] remarked:

The unions would never allow an individual fireman on a call to take the rap for such a thing. I don't think the public would either. And it' laughable to think the CPS would consider it appropriate to prosecute for criminal damage. They'd be more likely to prosecute the vehicle owner for obstructing the emergency services.

[Andy Burns]

Planning docs said alu windows

If the alu cladding melted, so would the window frames

[The Natural Philosopher]

That I do not know.

I'd guess a funded subsidiary.

[Robin]

TMOs are not the same as Housing Associations. TMOs were created by statute (the Housing Act 1985). That gave council tenants the "right to manage[1]". Housing Association (HA) tenants were not given the same right. But HAs could agree voluntarily to the creation of TMOs.

[1] "manage" 'cos the ownership of the housing remains with the council/HA

[The Natural Philosopher]

Just not 'known' to Government officials either here or in the EU. Whose business one feels it ought to be to know.

Instead of banning high power hoovers, they had banned this stiff..

..but no one would give them a brown envelope to ban this stuff would they.

[Mike Tomlinson]

or

judging by the width of the frames, definitely not UPVC.

[Tim Watts]

That's probably the sum of it. The average Westminster/Brussels idiot knows what a hoover is, but probably has little clue about building materials.

[tabbypurr]

That doesn't fly in a narrow access road as at Grenfell tower. Lack of space means cars would inevitably get seriously damaged if the fire tender is to get through.

And how long does it take to very slowly push tens of cars out the way? Not that there is anywhere to push them to with Grenfell, one would have to squash them out the way or push them through the railings, with obviously considerable damage.

NT

[RJH]

No.

[dennis]

You want the UK to be independent and they could ban it so don't blame the EU for not doing so. There are no EU regs that stop the UK banning any dangerous product from being used by the councils.