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

[ADLIan]

Plus client, specifiers, cladding manufacturer, insulation manufacturer, sub-contractors, specialists.... Some of it downright untruthful, a lot of ignorance on fire testing (fueled by certain industry sectors) and a mad series of contractual relationships where everyone thought everyone else was responsible for the design.

[saveasteading]

Thanks ADLIan . Would it have been PU that was a previous issue, and PUR is more fire resistant?

[ADLIan]

Under current fire testing regime there would be little difference in fire performance between a PUR (PU?) and PIR - something like Euroclasss D and C respectively, both still combustible.

[saveasteading]

19 minutes ago, ADLIan said:

both still combustible.

I too have tested very small bits of insulation on a fire. I justify this as being best for the planet overall....a few fumes and a lot of knowledge.

 

Polystyrene burns and melts and drips and spreads

Polyurethane , whichever letters, was similar. (presumably I have not seen the more resistant one)

PIR burned  but went out when the heat source was removed. then burned to nothing when back in....lots of black smoke.

Fibreglass makes a little smoke (from the glue?) and turns to sand

mineral wool , the light insulation type, as for fibreglass

mineral wool as fire barrier just sits in the fire. 

sheeps' wool, stinks and somehow disappears but doesn't burn as such.

 

mdf/cellulose board....not tested

[saveasteading]

On 07/11/2021 at 09:33, ADLIan said:

Finding the Euroclass fire rating for these products was not made easy

It doesn't help that there are class O and class 0 ratings (that is Oh and zero).

 

I have been at a furnace test, and don't doubt the integrity of the test labs. 

My main memory was of how hot it was on the safe side of the furnace, before it was deemed to have failed.

 

But I learned on a fire engineering course (implied not stated) that the labs can only test what is sent to them, and to the level that is requested.

Hence a 1/2 hour rated  ceiling with no tile clips might well pass a 1 hour test, but wasn't tested to that level... (I guess the manufacturer instructs that the test is terminated after 1/2 hour)

Then the test with clips is done to show a 1 hour pass.

 

 

[jamieled]

13 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

mdf/cellulose board....not tested

Chucked a handful of cellulose into a fire out of curiosity. Given it's made from shredded paper I'd expected it to go up, but it just sort of smouldered. I think it's treated with borax or something like it.

[ADLIan]

The Building Reg classification is 'Class 0' (number zero, not letter O). This is a Building Reg classification only based on BS 476 tests - it is not a true BS 476 classification however (that only goes to Class1). I don't think Class 0 is referenced in England & Scotland Regs anymore. Most building materials are covered by harmonised European Standards (that the UK will keep post Brexit) and these do not use BS 476 but instead use the Euroclass system under BS EN 13501.

[DragsterDriver]

13 hours ago, Nickfromwales said:

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

I haven’t read anymore but I believe firebreaks were specced but not fitted?

[Nickfromwales]

That’ll just be the tip of the iceberg, sadly. 

[TonyT]

Same issue with risers within the building!

[Iceverge]

18 hours ago, saveasteading said:

I too have tested very small bits of insulation on a fire. I justify this as being best for the planet overall....a few fumes and a lot of knowledge.

 

Polystyrene burns and melts and drips and spreads

Polyurethane , whichever letters, was similar. (presumably I have not seen the more resistant one)

PIR burned  but went out when the heat source was removed. then burned to nothing when back in....lots of black smoke.

Fibreglass makes a little smoke (from the glue?) and turns to sand

mineral wool , the light insulation type, as for fibreglass

mineral wool as fire barrier just sits in the fire. 

sheeps' wool, stinks and somehow disappears but doesn't burn as such.

 

mdf/cellulose board....not tested

 

 Have you changed you mind about the PIR in your steading yet? 

 

I think if I had my time over again I'd opt for mineral wool on our cavity over EPS beads. 

 

As an aside I tried to light some cellulose loose on a tray to show the builder who was suspicious. We couldn't get it to take. It just kind of smouldered but no flames . 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Iceverge

[saveasteading]

3 hours ago, Iceverge said:

Have you changed you mind about the PIR in your steading yet? 

Yes, uploading the application today.
PIR under the floor, where we only have 100mm available  in some places because of existing floor and lintel levels, but will put as much as we can in where levels allow.

That is all though, elsewhere will be mineral wool, plus lots of cavities for damp and services, and supplemented by wood-fibre board where we don't reach the targets.

Although we only have to reach 'reasonably practicable' insulation , we have hit the target using 'area weighting'. and all areas are close in themselves. 

 

I had originally misread the standards, and thought we were a long way inside the target, but for a cold unoccupied building the targets are close to new-build. We would have aimed for this anyway.

 

In calculating the wall effect, 600mm granite, I have used the figure the Scottish Government suggest for assessing old buildings, based on real tests, and that helps a lot*. Have also taken the advice on not ventilating the air-gap between wall and new internal stud, as that would suck out all the heat. so have allowed a compressed mineral wool seal at the head of the wall, closing the gap to the roof void.

 

I don't know any figures but expect that our single-sized sand ground will also perform much better than 'normal' ground. It will be utterly dry. This will partly help in the heat loss through the ground due to the outer walls all being so close together.

 

* Studies show that the central core being over 40% mortar helps a lot, so the granite does not absorb water and thus does not lose heat in wind drying. The mortar gets a bit damp but it migrates down. The bottom metre is damp all year, but of course is the central bit again. We are showing a hyload bitumen sheet to the inside bottom metre of the wall, to keep the damp out, and then hoping to resist any BCO suggestion to ventilate the void to let all the heat out.

 

[saveasteading]

38 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

PIR under the floor,

Because it doesn't burn there, and the only other option is polystyrene.

There are signs that PIR costs have steadied. Locals advertising leftovers are not asking for list price (or higher).

 

I am wondering if my post above would better be in a new post, rather than attached to the Grenfell discussion. 

[Gordo]

On 09/11/2021 at 14:04, Nickfromwales said:

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

They were all at fault. As soon as it happened they try to blame BC. But they were all ignorant and complacent in it. The architect had no real idea about cladding. The cladding designer seemed to have little idea. The contractor did his own thing in substituted materials, little quality control and installed cavity barriers incorrectly. The fire engineer didn’t consider the details fully. The manufacturer of products mislead everyone (to sell products) in knowledge of concerns and the BC officer was mislead, over worked and somewhat complacent. Everyone though it was someone else’s responsibility to consider fire safety in cladding. 

 

I would pin the biggest culpability on product manufacturer followed by the confused convoluted works procurement system.

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, Gordo said:

They were all at fault.

There must be a project manager. 

Back in the 1980s I knew someone that was the site secretary when they refurbished The Octagon in High Wycombe. Her job was basically to collate all the paperwork and get it sent to Head Office. I think it was Laing Construction that managed the project and she had a single point of contact there who signed for everything.  If he was not available, she had to hang onto the paperwork until he was about.

Be different now as it can all be emailed, but the trail is there.

[Gordo]

7 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

There must be a project manager. 

Back in the 1980s I knew someone that was the site secretary when they refurbished The Octagon in High Wycombe. Her job was basically to collate all the paperwork and get it sent to Head Office. I think it was Laing Construction that managed the project and she had a single point of contact there who signed for everything.  If he was not available, she had to hang onto the paperwork until he was about.

Be different now as it can all be emailed, but the trail is there.

The traditional hierarchy has collapsed long ago. It is a quagmire or designers, specialist designers, project managers, specialist sub-contract managers, planning supervisor etc etc etc. Whole thing is a comedy show just waiting to go wrong. Far to many cooks spoiling the broth. I suspect they will now need a designated fire manager or such who is responsible similar to CDM requirements. Just another layer or confusion but probably necessary 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Gordo

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Gordo said:

The traditional hierarchy has collapsed long ago. It is a quagmire or designers, specialist designers, project managers, specialist sub-contract managers, planning supervisor etc etc etc. Whole thing is a comedy show just waiting to go wrong. I suspect they will now need a designated fire manager or such who is responsible similar to CDM requirements. Just another layer or confusion but probably necessary 

Follow the money, that is the usual way.

[George]

1 hour ago, Gordo said:

They were all at fault. As soon as it happened they try to blame BC. But they were all ignorant and complacent in it. The architect had no real idea about cladding. The cladding designer seemed to have little idea. The contractor did his own thing in substituted materials, little quality control and installed cavity barriers incorrectly. The fire engineer didn’t consider the details fully. The manufacturer of products mislead everyone (to sell products) in knowledge of concerns and the BC officer was mislead, over worked and somewhat complacent. Everyone though it was someone else’s responsibility to consider fire safety in cladding. 

 

I would pin the biggest culpability on product manufacturer followed by the confused convoluted works procurement system.

They can all be at fault, but gross negligence is a high bar to prove. 

 

I agree that the manufacturer appears to be the one who most knowingly gave the incorrect product. But even then, had it been installed correctly with all the fire breaks, it's unlikely to have been quite the disaster it turned out to be. 

[Gordo]

1 hour ago, George said:

They can all be at fault, but gross negligence is a high bar to prove. 

 

I agree that the manufacturer appears to be the one who most knowingly gave the incorrect product. But even then, had it been installed correctly with all the fire breaks, it's unlikely to have been quite the disaster it turned out to be. 

Yeah I don’t think anyone will do time over this. There were almost identical cladding fires in Dubai and even in England previously with less loss of life and nothing was learned from it. To be honest I don’t expect much to change now either. The Hackett report was watered way down when published from the initial sound bites at start. No political will to change the system due to the costs, time and bureaucracy that would ensue. 
 

Most people involved were either ignorant or complacent and easily mislead, however the manufacturers were knowingly untruthful and misleading to their customers in the pursuit of profit. I would like them to be punished brutally beyond all others. People rely on them to make informed decisions. I would also like to see fire safety given greater consideration than insulation whereas now all anyone talks about is insulation.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Gordo

[SteamyTea]

23 minutes ago, Gordo said:

I would like them to be punished brutally

I think a 'truth and reconciliation' approach would be more productive.

Locking up, or even hanging murders, has not stopped murder. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by SteamyTea

[Gordo]

13 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I think a 'truth and reconciliation' approach would be more productive.

Locking up, or even hanging murders, has not stopped murder. 

That brought a smile. But in honesty I am serious due to the scale of the disaster brutal punishment is necessary. Maybe not by flogging or time but financial is where it will hurt a corporation enough to think twice about providing misleading information or from covering up their own concerns. Look at what America did to VW Audi over their emissions compared to what UK / EU did. Pathetic slapping of the wrist. After all this is going to cost government and affected buildings sorely.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Gordo

[Nickfromwales]

4 hours ago, Gordo said:

but probably necessary 

?. “Probably?”