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
Rain cladding often has such channels for ventilation of rain/condensation. These days they should have have intumescent seals at least at every floor. If someone fitted the wrong ones or left them out when fitting the cladding... But that's just speculation as there are so many other failure modes.
None of which stops the BBC of course campaigning already for money-no-object action. I note especially the way they pray in aid coroners' recommendations and criticise people for not acting on them as if coroners were experts in fire prevention (or much else other than medicine and law), let alone in judging what's cost-effective. But then the BBC rarely argue against more public expenditure on anything much (other than defence, border control and deportation).
In message , at
14:25:07 on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Robin remarked:
Who is managing the property, the tenants or the TMO?
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.
Are *buildings* like this insured? What they will say to occupants with contents insurance is "Your insurance is cancelled".
Pray tell how the tenants have much say in the matter? Apart from refusing to serve on it of course. But there will never be a shortage of cronies willing to do this.
You didn't right the above? Must be ghosts
Yet another black or white argument. Save those for your right wing pals who appreciate them.
But is this a prelude to the usual whitewash?
Ha ha ha. That's rich coming from you.
Which is why I put the 5mm after the ally and not the sandwich. No details were given of the overall thickness.
I take it you work for a council? Lots and lots of warning over the years, yet they went ahead with what is very obviously a dodgy cladding method - whether due to poor specification or installation.
En el artículo , newshound escribió:
Yes. the insurer for Grenfell is reported to be a Norwegian firm, though apparently they've resold the risk to reinsurers.
IIRC, tenants have seats on the committee. But apparently, in this case, complaints from actual tenants about the building got nowhere. But much of this is he said she said at the moment.
Did you forget about the owner?
In any event, there is no single model. See eg:
Of course they are insured
Warning of other elements of that building "over the years" perhaps, but the refurb only happened in 2015.
AFAICT it's used on all manner of buildings ... new or refurb, private or council housing, offices etc.
Why bother, if you are big enough to take the hit? I've worked for a firm that took the "bond" route for insuring its (very large) number of motor vehicles.
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
A TMO cannot take over management without (a) a vote by residents authorising the TMO to approach the council and then (b) another vote on the proposal - if any - the TMO and council agree.
Now are you going to tell us that you knew all of that already, and argue it is consistent with what you have held forth?
You do produce the most marvellous propositions: nothing is black and white but anything right is wrong.
You have no idea of my politics. The only thing I feel strongly about is prejudice, sloppy thinking, waste and lies. I'll make allowances for DIY-ers if they are willing to learn. I'll call out from time to time those who won't .
Wrong again.
Can you please state your qualifications for stating it was "very obviously a dodgy cladding method"?
No, he's going to wriggle as he always does.
Dave is the master of the "if it's not black it must be white" sort of argument, and the strawman, too.
Doesn't stop him making assertions and putting words in your mouth. Based on these he'll then call you extreme or a bigot.
Well you'll get plenty of that from Dave.
Crikey. Thought even you would believe the evidence of your own eyes.
But why clip the part of a sentence when quoting it? Presumably to look clever and try an make it say something diferent?
But let's get this clear. You are stating quite categorically there was nothing wrong with the cladding used or how it was installed? The outside of the building going up like that so quickly merely an unfortunate coincidence?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required