Ot: Or not. tower fire...

On 15/06/2017 17:12, Robin wrote:

You are deliberately splitting hairs here. It was so flammable it went up like an oversized fire lighter with a burn rate of 2m/minute.
The only thing that is certain at the moment is that the concrete building was encased in a layer of cladding that as installed in that configuration was well more than an order of magnitude more flammable than its paper specification (if the manufacturers are to be believed).
The other thing that is certain is that the horizontal fire breaks that should prevent the fire from moving from floor to floor were either defective, not present or ineffective (or a combination of those).
The cladding was dodgy by any reasonable definition and it seems from more recent reports was already banned in the USA for taller buildings. There was a more fire safe version of the outer cladding available at slightly higher cost.
I have been looking at the fire testing specs online ISO 1182 and ISO 1716 (I'm too mean to pay for the standards themselves) but I think I now see how you might have a material that passes the ISO lab tests but is absolutely lethal in large flat panels on the side of a building. See:
http://www.fire-testing.com/en-iso-1182
No disrepect intended to the company making the ISO 1182 tester - it isn't their fault that like with car exhaust emissions tests manufacturers will game the system to pass the specific tests used.
It is a case of what you measure gets controlled. The ISO measurements need to reflect how building cladding will be used in the real world.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

5mm of anything but aerogel would be pointless as insulation and even more pointless with a 25mm air gap.
There was PIR affixed to the concrete, then an air gap, then the sandwich rainscreen cladding with a Polyethylene core.
The PIR albeit with extensive charring still appears essentially intact
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is why I put the 5mm after the ally and not the sandwich. No details were given of the overall thickness.
--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

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 wrote:

The alu skin is more likely to be 0.5mm than 5mm, think how much it would weigh otherwise ... depends exactly which panel, but quite a few composite panels on the sotech website seem to be 45mm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/06/17 12:51, The Other Mike wrote:

It didn't burn like celotex (doesn't).

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 14:53:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

The Celotex just looks charred and essentially intact on recent coverage, directly torching the core of a sample of Celotex GA4000 some time ago with a propane torch produced a similar result to the surfaces visible on the building, so its experienced a temperature sufficient to debond the aluminium foil from the PIR or melt the aluminium.
The polyethylene core in the cladding is criminal regardless of the manufacturers claims for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/06/2017 14:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Agreed although something clearly did.
It may be that the geometry of the space frame combined with the Celotex and thin PE filled outer cladding provided just enough flame to catch. An unlucky combination that fails catastrophically.
Until we see some of the materials use tested we can only guess.
My suspicion from what I could see on BBC 10pm News was that the insulating material was aluminium coated rigid brown PU foam.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Burns wrote:

The times and indy seem to be stating that it was the PE (no fire rating) rather than FR (fire resistant) version that was fitted, and it would only have cost £5k extra for the whole tower to fit the fire resistant version
<http://independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-a7792711.html
They also make an A2 (incombustible) version. <https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/en/info_page/incombustible_A2_core_aluminium_composite_panels_facades_roof.asp
both the PE and FR versions seem to be approved by the BBA certificate, while most other (EN or DIN) certifications only approve the FR or A2 versions.
<http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/CertificateFiles/45/4510PS1i1.pdf
Meanwhile the BBC is still confusing the insulation and the cladding.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/06/17 08:13, Andy Burns wrote:

well the insulation is also a cladding
--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The company who made the cladding also make a more fire resistant one. More expensive, of course. So someone when pouring through their catalogue decided the cheaper and more flammable one was OK.
--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

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 Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:13:58 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Phew! Who needs enquiries when such insights are freely available?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 12:50:15 UTC+1, mechanic wrote:

Preliminary insights are freely available and many. An inquiry is to find what other issues exist, what failings made how much difference, who is to blame for what, what should be done in future and of course produce test results to prove their position.
That there is any mystery in this only speaks to the complete idiocy of the non-mechanic, yet again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 04:57:23 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Ah the expertise of this typical uk.d-i-y-er shines through again - an example to us all. Not just how to nail pieces of wood together, but how to construct tall buildings without fire risk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/06/17 19:50, mechanic wrote:

well its nice to know that half the MSM are running with the ideas posted up here yesterday.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/817651/london-fire-grenfell-tower-block-cladding-latest-updates-european-union-regulations http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4604296/Was-cladding-blame-spread-tower-block-fire.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/disaster-waiting-to-happen-fire-expert-slams-uk-tower-blocks
etc...
it seems that what there was in fact was celotex slapped on, then an airgap then alloy skinned polystyrene decorative panels to hide the celotex.
--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But the Lilly Allens and Cerys Matthews of this world are now popping up in front of cameras demanding sprinklers in every high rise, without any evidence whether they would have made much of a difference in this case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In a rare comment from the council (they appear to be very successfully avoiding the media) it is alleged the residents said they didn't want sprinklers because of the disruption that would be caused during their installation. It does remind me a little of all those offices with fire doors propped open by a fire extinguisher (more of a trip hazard than a tool, should there be a fire).
--
Roland Perry

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

Never mind offices, it happens in fire stations ..
http://adslpipe.co.uk/misc/firedoor_fireextinguisher_firestation.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did they take a vote of all the tenants? Or just a few to get the answer they were looking for? If they are going to save a few quid by using dodgy cladding, they're not likely to want to splash out on the much more expensive sprinkler system.
It was a major internal refurbishment. New kitchens and bathrooms, and presumably a re-wire. Also the fitting of individual boilers to replace the communal heating system, so new gas pipes to each flat.
Those on the unofficial resident's group seemed well aware of that coroner's report saying sprinklers should be retro fitted.
--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

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

We'll have to see. There doesn't seem to be a lack of a local pressure group to check that such decisions are taken after sufficient discussion.

--
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.