Jeremy Harris

The usual system would be to fit a ring beam to the pile top plates, then the structure on top of that. SIPs panels are fussy about support, and the ring beam must be wide enough to support both the inner and outer skin of the panel, as both are equally load bearing. Unlike a conventional timber frame, where the compressive load is taken by the vertical studs, with a SIPs panel these loads are taken almost wholly by the two skins, and it's important that both skins share the load evenly.

There's no difference, in theory, as LABC isn't, directly, a part of the council, but a separate trading body, I believe, that is self-funded and run like a business. From what I can tell, it looks like this work was overseen by LABC under a Building Notice, as the original Full Plans submission was never approved. There's a link here to the current status from BC: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/bconline/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_RBKC_BCAPR_124682

Very unlikely to change the SFP at all, as the flow dynamics are dominated by the throttling effect of the terminal/plenum restrictors, that are a couple of orders of magnitude greater.

I agree, in part, but would questions the actual approval testing required under BS476, as it seems to have weaknesses when it comes to materials used for EWI. The catch-all in Part B was clearly not enforced, but then that's not that uncommon, I fear. I suspect that, in this case, no one connected the long history ofEWI facade fires with what was being done to Grenfell Tower. How on earth the designers of the insulation, ventilation cavity and cladding configuration managed to ignore the regs and the very clear insulation installation requirements I don't know.

I think the answer to that will be the same as the reason for the building regs not taking account of all the external insulation facade fires that have been happening all over the world for the past 10 years or more - commercial pressure against any tightening of the regulations. We saw this with Part L1a, where the initial draft consultation significantly increased the energy performance requirements. Once there had been consultation with industry, these were significantly watered down, on the basis that there would be cost implications for the construction industry at a time when it was trying to recover from the economic down turn. Never underestimate the ability of commercial interests to buy off government, I've seen it happen first hand, and it's not usually beneficial to taxpayers.

The lunatics at DCLG have instructed local authorities to cut out (!) 250mm square sections of cladding for testing. This is madness, pure and simple, as cutting sections out will expose the core (which is normally fire-sealed at the edges!), plus the fire testing has to be representative, as a large part of the fire resistance of aluminium comes from its ability to conduct heat away rapidly from a heated area. This is critically dependent on the ratio of the panel size to the heat source - something that will be massively off with a small sample. They should be testing these panels to a recognised and appropriate test method for cladding material, something like DIN4102, and definitely not BS476, as that doesn't realistically test combustibility in this scenario, in my view.

I doubt it, but it might well fit in a 40mm waste pipe socket fitting.

I believe the TPE ones can be bonded to GRP OK: https://www.roofinglines.co.uk/product/roof-drain-tpe-63mm Here's confirmation that TPE is OK with GRP: https://www.roofingsuperstore.co.uk/product/roofdrain-outlet-tpe-60mm.html

I've made up a drain for a GRP roof, using a bit of GRP tube that fitted inside a standard 68mm down pipe. IIRC, I bought it from Cornish Fibre Sports, back when my cousin worked there. It was easy to just bond this in place, as it was shaped like a top hat, with a thin flange to bond the roofing on to. The down pipe just pushed up from underneath, over the stub.

That's exactly how I think the fire got up from the window opening into the ventilated cavity. The installation spec for RS5000 gives a requirement for a rockwool/fibre cement board horizontal fire stop, and that doesn't seem to have been included. Normally the ventilation should be provided well away from openings in the building that fire might escape from, so typically gaps with insect mesh behind away from the opening, hidden behind the gaps between the cladding cassettes. He is a moron, and simply has no concept of mens rea, something that I find absolutely gobsmacking given the length of time that he's been in parliament, revising and voting on laws. The most serious criminal charge that can be brought in this case is gross negligence manslaughter, as they cannot possibly be a valid argument to support actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

The news seems very far from being accurate, in my view, because there are indications that buildings fitted with non-combustible insulation are being declared as having "failed", and I very strongly suspect there is a degree of sensationalist reporting going on. I believe that it is the aluminium composite cladding that is being tested at the moment, and I frankly doubt that there is anywhere near enough fuel in the 3 to 5mm thick PE core of that to create the sort of fire intensity that we saw on Grenfell Tower. There are more reliable reports that the PIR insulation fitted to Grenfell Tower was the primary fuel source for the fire, and I suspect that, in the final analysis, this emphasis on the composite cladding being the primary cause of the fire will be shown to be wrong. I fear that we have a situation where there are a number of "headless chickens" running around, trying to do a PR job but not having a full understanding of the way the various elements of the insulation, ventilation cavity, fire stopping and external composite cladding, interacted to produce the devastation to this building. My own view is that this may well have been prevented just by having an effective fire stop around the openings. Looking at the detail drawings, there doesn't appear to have been anything more that a trim around the openings, which seems to be no thicker than the cladding. I find it hard to see how this thin barrier could have been very effective, and there looks to have been enough of a gap for fire, coming from the window, to penetrate the ventilation cavity, heat the PIR up and cause enough off-gassing to produce the initial fuel for the external fire. The composite aluminium cladding contributed to the fire, but I doubt it was a big enough fuel source on its own to have caused a major fire. Drawing-1377464.pdf

I looked at a few companies that offered helical pile system, when we were looking to buy a plot where there was a lot of buried archaeology that needed to be protected. I think that the suppliers we looked at were these: http://www.geologicfoundations.co.uk/design_installation.html/ http://www.helicalsystems.co.uk/products/groundscrews and another company (that was very helpful) that used to have a stand at the NSBRC at Swindon, but that I can't remember the name of, and I don't seem to have kept any of the correspondence. All the systems were pretty similar, but there was a difference between the specialisations of the various companies, with some doing mainly things like road signs and gantry foundations, others doing large building foundations and a fair few doing smaller building foundations. Overall I was pretty impressed with the technique, especially as it's been around for 150 years or more, yet seems to not be used as widely as it could be. The big advantage, apart from the speed and lack of ground work disruption, seems to be that the piles can be driven in quickly and are load-bearing from the moment they are in, so the building ring beam can be bolted on, and construction can start, as soon as all the piles are in and the caps levelled.

I cut around 3 to 4 inches from the top of some driven-in posts that were around 100 to 120mm in diameter, to level them up for a fence, and there didn't seem to be any colour change. I have a feeling that, under the sort of pressure used to force the preservative into the timber, that penetration into sections of up to around 150mm in diameter may well be close to 100% if it's done properly. As above, I'd guess there is a fair bit of variation with price, as my understanding is that it takes longer to get the preservative to penetrate deeper, and so costs more in both time and the amount of treatment stuff used.

Ryan, there is a lot of history here on this forum about duct silencers that is relevant. I take the blame for starting it a couple of years ago, when installing our Genvex active MVHR unit, and making an error in not fitting the recommended silencers, because a late change to the services room layout in our build, and a change of MVHR unit, left insufficient room to fit off-the-shelf absorption silencers. As a consequence, I made units very like the ones that @Stones has made, and found they were very effective. Others have done much the same. I made ours because I needed a custom shape to fit in the available space, originally. There is a requirement to build an insulation box around an MVHR fitted outside the heated envelope, both in the MIs and Part F (or the Scottish equivalent in this case). The access requirement in Part F (or it's equivalent) still has to be complied with, but generally everyone on here that's fitted MVHR (that's a lot of us now) seem to have found that building control are fairly relaxed about demonstrating compliance.

Nope, it just has to require to Part F (or the Scottish equivalent in this case). There is a requirement in Part F to provide adequate access for regular maintenance, and that removable panel meets that requirement. I undertook my own certification against Part F for our installation, as there is no requirement for the person commissioning a domestic MVHR to hold any certification, and the procedure for commissioning and providing the required information is in the additional information that applies to Part F (here in England and Wales, may well be different in Scotland).

The thing that surprises me is that these units have been around for decades, yet they are still noisy and potentially unreliable. I'd have thought that there has to be a way of making a quiet and reliable solution to this problem by now. The house in Portpatrick where we stayed was at the bottom of a very steep drive (the builder wittily named it "Doonhill"..........) and had a pumped system for the whole house. It was a submersible pump in a chamber under the drive, and never gave a moment's trouble in the five years we lived there. It was also silent, and unless you knew that there was a pump there you'd never guess.

AFAIK, it just needs to comply with Part A, in terms of the structure, same as the house. CE marking applies to materials and products, not companies, so as long as the steel is supplied to the spec the SE has provided any competent steel erector can put it up.

I get the feeling that a lot of the markings put on Chinese-made goods that are sold by drop shippers and the like are just there for show. It's probably a bit like Chinglish, in that the manufacturers may not even have anyone that can read English, so they never even notice that the wording is completely wrong.

I know this is from the Telegraph, but it still seems to indicate that, at long last, the combination of combustible insulation with the chimney effect created by the rain screen cladding and the ventilation gap is being seriously looked at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/24/insulation-real-inferno-threat-warn-safety-experts/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/24/grenfells-unusual-design-led-blaze-spread-say-investigators/ Also interesting to see that the media have picked up on the external deluge sprinkler system as risk mitigation - a system that was devised some years ago to deal with this very risk.

Copper is relatively expensive, so there are cables around (mainly from the Far East) that use alloys, or even copper plated wires, rather than solid copper. This increases the cable resistance, and reduces the current handling capacity. There's also scams with the insulation, using materials that breakdown or crack with age, or that don't have the required heat resistance. I've never seen domestic fixed wiring cable that's looked dodgy, but I did buy (from ebay) a spare charger for my camera battery that didn't have a UK plug on it. When I cut the plug off to fit one, I found that the two core cable wasn't double insulated and that the wires inside were made of some very fine non-copper metal.

I shaped some to make thresholds between the bedrooms and bathrooms, as the bathroom floors are about 9mm higher. It's very hard, and not easy to plane, even with an electric plane and TC blades, but a belt sander worked OK. I finished them with some varnish and they look just the same as the adjacent ready-finished flooring. The stuff works a bit like a hardwood with a twisted grain. It reminded me of working with some Idigbo that I used on my old boat; that was a pig to work because of the grain.

Just to chuck in my three ha'pence worth, they are NOISY. We stayed in a holiday let some years ago that had one of these, and the noise if someone went to the loo in the middle of the night was enough to wake the dead. The pump seemed to start from some sort of level switch, and the one in the holiday let would give a short couple of bursts even if the loo wasn't flushed.

I'd second Temp's comment above. We bought a plot for around 2/3rds of the market value, because it had significant technical problems. Just getting the site level, with a big retaining wall to hold back the land behind, cost over £50k. If we'd opted to have mains water and drainage, then that would have added about another £40k, but we went for a borehole and treatment plant, which together cost a bit under £12k, with the pump, filtration and disinfection system. We ended up paying about £10k or so more than the market value for the plot, by the time we had it level and services in, which was probably about right.

It's OK Nick, that's the way I read it. I deliberately didn't use that dreadful trim, that has what amounts to a gutter in it to trap water, as I'd used it around the bath on the panels I fitted to our old bathroom, and experienced just how bad it is. There I fitted a wider PVC trim strip to fix the problem caused by the recommended "seal". Why they still sell that seal I don't know, as it's a really bad design.

There seem to be a lot of claims that the rain screen cladding is "banned" in the USA and Europe, which seems a bit odd, as I can't find any evidence to support this. What I have found is this document that lists the certification for Reynobond in several different countries: https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Certifications page_042014.pdf