After Grenfell & the employees secret fire test results,why would I trust Kingspan?

[CalvinHobbes]

Considering the various media reports, what faith have you in Kingspan and why?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55986486

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/17/director-grenfell-firm-quits-evidence-outdated-fire-tests-kingspan

 

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/health-and-safety/grenfell-kingspan-probed-over-hidden-test-results-24-03-2021/

[Nickfromwales]

Are other PIR manufacturers to be exempt from this question?

[CalvinHobbes]

Nope, picked on Kingspan because of the attached media reports. Just as interested in any other PIR manufactuers reputations but haven't seen similar reports on them. 

[SteamyTea]

The Guardian link mentions Celotex and Arconic.

[JohnMo]

We had a barrel for burning stuff on, so did my own experiment

 

Put Icycene spray foam off cuts, PIR, Rockwool and glass wool, durisol blocks, aluminium vapour acvl and Pert-al-Pert tube materials on the burning fire at different stages.

 

Icycene and PIR burnt very quickly

Rockwool not touched , came out the way it went in.

Glass wool, mostly unaffected, sort of matted together.

Durisol blocks, become slightly more friable, but didn't burn and stayed in shape.

Aluminium AVCL, paper backing burnt away, but otherwise intact, just a bit wrinkled.

Pert-al-Pert, plastic disappeared, aluminium core remained intact.

 

PIR, would I use in a high rise or anything above a couple of stories no.  I have it inside my Durisol blocks, protected by concrete and Durisol and under the floor, again sandwiched between concrete.  

 

Icycene, is inside roof, protected by plasterboard, and aluminium AVCL.  This would buy time to escape the building.

 

I have Rockwool in every internal wall, to mitigate fire spread.  Should of had in the roof, but 250m2 of roof I would have lost the will to live, installing it.

 

Like all things it a balance of risk Vs reward.

 

Companies exist to make profit, would you really trust any of them - watch the film Dark Waters about Teflon

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

@Johnmo you have just published, for the world to see, some of the environmental laws you have broken.

Good stuff.

[ADLIan]

BS EN 13165 which covers the manufacture of PUR foam was introduced in early 2000s and referenced BS EN 13501 for the assessment of the fire performance. Both Kingspan and Celotex continued to use BS 476 data (which was no longer relevant) hiding behind the Class 0 surface spread of flame rating. Note Class 0 is not even a BS 476 rating! Hence the issues at Grenfell.

 

Finding the Euroclass fire rating for these products was not made easy simply because the D or E rating would have revealed them to be combustible. From memory the other PUR foam manufacturers did use the Euroclass system as soon as it was introduced.

[Ferdinand]

2 hours ago, ADLIan said:

BS EN 13165 which covers the manufacture of PUR foam was introduced in early 2000s and referenced BS EN 13501 for the assessment of the fire performance. Both Kingspan and Celotex continued to use BS 476 data (which was no longer relevant) hiding behind the Class 0 surface spread of flame rating. Note Class 0 is not even a BS 476 rating! Hence the issues at Grenfell.

 

Finding the Euroclass fire rating for these products was not made easy simply because the D or E rating would have revealed them to be combustible. From memory the other PUR foam manufacturers did use the Euroclass system as soon as it was introduced.

 

What's the difference between PUR and PIR, please?

 

Link is fine.

 

Thanks.

[SteamyTea]

8 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

What's the difference between PUR and PIR, please

It is to do with the way the chemicals react and cross link.

I never remember which is which.

I think PIR reacts more during formation as the cyanide group reacts with itself, rather than just then polyol group.

It is a fair few years since I played with them in Castle Donington, was fun though, had a brilliant chemist there that was excellent at explaining it all.

[Ferdinand]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

It is to do with the way the chemicals react and cross link.

I never remember which is which.

I think PIR reacts more during formation as the cyanide group reacts with itself, rather than just then polyol group.

It is a fair few years since I played with them in Castle Donington, was fun though, had a brilliant chemist there that was excellent at explaining it all.

 

Checked the performance.

 

PIR more insulating, better fire performance.

PUR more moisture tolerant.

 

I love "polyol". Shall use it as a nickname for the next time I meet 2 Olivers together.

 

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

2 Olivers together

Bipolyol.

 

Unless they are Welsh, then Dipolyol.

[ADLIan]

PUR or PIR doesn’t really matter as both come under the above Standard and both still combustible. Difference is in the chemistry, PIR slightly better thermal and fire performance compared to PUR but still burns..

[Nickfromwales]

None of this helped by vertical ventilation voids feeding fresh air as fast as the fire could suck it in  

[joe90]

I only used pur under my concrete floor (no way to catch fire) but used rockwall everywhere else (rockwall not capable of supporting concrete ?‍♂️).

[DragsterDriver]

On 07/11/2021 at 13:57, Nickfromwales said:

None of this helped by vertical ventilation voids feeding fresh air as fast as the fire could suck it in  

basically a furnace. Should have been firebreaks, I wonder who’s to blame?

contractor?

site agent?

building control?

[dpmiller]

scapegoat?

[CalvinHobbes]

I think between seeing  Mica in Donegal (many of the houses effected are owned by tradies)and reading about the Grenfell predicted tragedy,  I am a tad cynical.

[joe90]

8 hours ago, CalvinHobbes said:

I am a tad cynical.

No, you are realistic. I blame the testing system that should be gov controlled. Manufacturers should no be allowed to test their own products (unless under scrutiny from gov/independent bodies).

[DragsterDriver]

33 minutes ago, joe90 said:

No, you are realistic. I blame the testing system that should be gov controlled. Manufacturers should no be allowed to test their own products (unless under scrutiny from gov/independent bodies).

Which is like the big house builders doing in house building control. Poacher/gamekeeper.

[saveasteading]

On 07/11/2021 at 12:03, Ferdinand said:

What's the difference between PUR and PIR,

Non-scientifically:   The samples I have seen look very different. PUR looks like the white foam you see in packaging for delivery protection. PIR looks like a denser 'Crunchy' bar.

 

I recall having a client's insurer panicking about 20  years ago, because there had been nasty fires where PUR was blamed.

If I remember correctly, it drips as it burns, and so spreads fire quickly. 

It was then withdrawn from use in commercial composite steel panels, although still used in agricultural sheds.

 

I have been involved in picking up the pieces  in 2 fires. one was made much worse by polystyrene insulation in the  roof, from a very different era.

 

the other was a nasty fire on the outside face  one of our own completed steel buildings: arson/vandals setting fire to a huge pile of bagged sawdust stacked against the metal wall.

The paint on the steel cladding was burnt off, and the fibreglass cavity turned to sand. 

The screw fixings lost their heads and washers but stayed fixed.

There was no structural damage or distortion.

 

So I had the chance to discuss with the fire officer.

He was amazed that the wall stood up to the heat and delighted that the insulation just disappeared. He said they were ready for the fire to enter the building.

I told him it was designed as a fire barrier wall, (fibreglass to stay in place 15 minutes before failing) but his opinion was that they seldom worked so this was great.

 

Went on to discuss PIR filled composite cladding. Off the record they hated it and were scared of it falling off the walls, so they never went near it.

 

So, I think the fire service knew of problems with PIR but couldn't prevent its use.

I asked if I could quote how impressed they were with our wall, and he said no: they are not allowed to comment on commercial products.

 

If we had used rock-wool instead of fibreglass I wonder how it would have performed. Not as much difference as is implied I feel, unless it was the special fire resisting variety.

 

Grenfell: I recall reading that the sample sent for fire testing had an added sheet of cement board that was never made part of the product.  That would make it manufacturer specific.

the other manufacturers' products would have behaved in the same way, but had not made the same claim.

 

How to stop it happening again? Nobody was in overall charge.  The old position of Borough Engineer would have been that person, but there was none such. Would they have spotted the problem? Probably yes I would say, as they would have had the authority to have it all designed and proven, and not changed without approval from the top. But the other parties would have complained about bureaucracy and interference.

Anyway, there is no such role any longer as accountants and  'executives'  took control of the councils.

[Jilly]

Eek you are all making me thing surely £3-4 k on sprinkler/misting vs mid kitchen instead of posh should be a no brainer, but in reality we all have no brains when it comes to small risk vs money...until it's too late. 

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, joe90 said:

No, you are realistic. I blame the testing system that should be gov controlled. Manufacturers should no be allowed to test their own products (unless under scrutiny from gov/independent bodies).

I think the idea is that they are under the scrutiny of the correct organisations.

One of the problems is that the product may then be used incorrectly.

What we don't want is a system that take decades to develope and approve all new products.

Medical licencing is like that.

 

But it is all irrelevant as we will be lowering most standards now that we are not shackled by the EU.

Edited November 9, 2021 by SteamyTea

[ADLIan]

You cannot tell the difference between pir and pur just by looking at them as they both look the same, the difference is in the chemistry. Normally a yellow/cream foam with foil, bitumen felt or glass tissue facings. The material used in packaging is expanded polystyrene, EPS, (you can normally see the individual beads that have been fused together). EPS is even more combustible than pur/pir and tends to shrink away from fire but does create molten droplets which can spread fire further.

 

Rock and glass wool products are classed as non-combustible.

[Ferdinand]

15 minutes ago, Jilly said:

Eek you are all making me thing surely £3-4 k on sprinkler/misting vs mid kitchen instead of posh should be a no brainer, but in reality we all have no brains when it comes to small risk vs money...until it's too late. 

 

I think Posh is more expensive than that. Ask David B.

[Nickfromwales]

17 hours ago, DragsterDriver said:

basically a furnace. Should have been firebreaks, I wonder who’s to blame?

contractor?

site agent?

building control?

All of the above. They all knew this would fail spectacularly in the event of a fire……