Onoff Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 36 minutes ago, Crofter said: Sorry for the macabre twist, but is Grenfell the biggest loss of life in a single UK incident since Lockerbie? Hillsborough was the year after Lockerbie. 96? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crofter Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 20 minutes ago, Onoff said: Hillsborough was the year after Lockerbie. 96? Yes you're right. Late 80s was a pretty bad time... glad I was too young to really understand it at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Some interesting comments in this article written last month whice I've only just seen..https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald/20170623/282132111446930 Apparently the fire certification for the Reynobond PE panels has the "CE mark indicated" but "on closer inspection it transpires that it is only Reynolux - the aluminium skin - which is CE approved". The BBA certificate (which I think is still valid) apparently says "For resistance to fire, the performance of a wall incorporating this product, can only be determined by tests from a suitably accredited laboritory and is not covered by this certificate." eg The BBA haven't approved it for use on walls (of any height?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 It looks like there may be corporate manslaughter charges: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241 Not the most satisfactory approach, in my view. I believe that the individuals involved in making the key decisions that led to the fire should be held personally accountable, and not be able to hide under a corporate umbrella, and so be unlikely to face a prison sentence if found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, JSHarris said: It looks like there may be corporate manslaughter charges: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241 Not the most satisfactory approach, in my view. I believe that the individuals involved in making the key decisions that led to the fire should be held personally accountable, and not be able to hide under a corporate umbrella, and so be unlikely to face a prison sentence if found guilty. Interesting that the Beeb says "senior executives". Does that mean the majority of tenants and leaseholders on the board of the KCTMO will not be charged? Ferdinand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 18 minutes ago, Ferdinand said: Interesting that the Beeb says "senior executives". Does that mean the majority of tenants and leaseholders on the board of the KCTMO will not be charged? Ferdinand I don't think we can rely on the accuracy of any BBC report, as they've played fast and loose with facts too many times in recent months to be considered as a reliable source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 Credit to "lineweight" over at the Green Building Forum for posting this link.https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/the-truth-about-grenfell-tower-a-report-by-architects-for-social-housing/ It pretty much covers every aspect of the disaster. Interesting points for me were: * The work appears to have been done on a Building Notice not Full plans Approval. * The Architects originally specified an insulation system comprising Celotex FR5000 insulation board attached to a timber backing (although at some point that was changed to RS5000). * There were fundamental design flaws such a tall vertical voids formed where the cladding was fitted around the vertical concrete pillars. * The changes to the CDM regulations in 2015 moved responsibility for safety from one party to many parties, some of which appear to have responsibility without authority for safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 (edited) It's a pity that some of the reasonably accurate detail in that article is completely overwhelmed by such a lot of left-wing political rhetoric, and some hopelessly inaccurate stuff from the Guardian thrown in for good measure. It seems that the Guardian was the source used by the author for a fair bit of the article's content, which doesn't fill me with confidence, given the inaccurate way that newspaper has reported on this tragedy. Comments regarding architects images only including white people, and all the unnecessary stuff about social problems in adjacent areas, have no place in an analysis of the cause of this fire, or the reason for its rapid spread. It seems that every time the author saw an opportunity to express his own political views he seized it with both hands, which rather undermines the credibility of the whole article. It certainly shouldn't be titled "The truth about Grenfell Tower", as it definitely isn't, even though it makes some good points. Edited July 30, 2017 by JSHarris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Temp said: Credit to "lineweight" over at the Green Building Forum for posting this link.https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/the-truth-about-grenfell-tower-a-report-by-architects-for-social-housing/ It pretty much covers every aspect of the disaster. Interesting points for me were: * The work appears to have been done on a Building Notice not Full plans Approval. * The Architects originally specified an insulation system comprising Celotex FR5000 insulation board attached to a timber backing (although at some point that was changed to RS5000). * There were fundamental design flaws such a tall vertical voids formed where the cladding was fitted around the vertical concrete pillars. * The changes to the CDM regulations in 2015 moved responsibility for safety from one party to many parties, some of which appear to have responsibility without authority for safety. Did that change of responsibility extend to projects that were more mid-stream? I would doubt that unless the project itself was rebooted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Ferdinand said: Did that change of responsibility extend to projects that were more mid-stream? I would doubt that unless the project itself was rebooted. It comes down to the exact date that the contract was signed with the main contractor. I believe this was before CDM 2015 came into force. The building regulations application (which was originally going to be Full Plans, but was later changed to being under a Building Notice) is dated 4th September 2014, and CDM 2015 came into force in April 2015. As the building regs application was most probably submitted after the contract was awarded, I strongly suspect that CDM 2015 did not apply, unless its provisions were supposed to be applied retrospectively to projects that were already underway (which I don't think is the case). I think this is just another inaccuracy in that article, driven by the author's political bias. Edited July 30, 2017 by JSHarris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 It looks like various combinations of insulation and cladding is being subjected to large scale testing. The BBC report that the combination of Rockwool and Reynobond PE has just been tested and failed. Suggest that 111 buildings have that combination... Grenfell fire: 111 buildings fail latest fire test - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40809206 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 >comments regarding architects images only including white people, and all the unnecessary stuff about social problems in adjacent areas, have no place in an analysis of the cause of this fire, or the reason for its rapid spread. I am inclined to have some sympathy with this point though not as the mainspring of a political argument. Though personally I would go for outline figures and sidestep the whole thing. When in Sydney I had a little go at one of the big national museums because their soopah dooopah development proposal rendering in large size in the entrance hall only showed 2 or 3 men out of 15-20 members of the public. Ferdinand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 This page has details of the insulation and cladding combinations being tested and approx. dates for when the results of each combination will be known. These tests are being conducted on a 9m tall mock-up with fire breaks fitted between floors. I've added the results so far released.. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/ACM_cladding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) The third combination from that table (ACM with fire retardant core & PIR insulation) has failed... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-test-report-dclg-bs-8414-test-no3 It failed because the fire spread too much causing the test to be terminated early. One article says 13 buildings over 18 meters are affected. Edited August 11, 2017 by Temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Temp said: The third combination from that table (ACM with fire retardant core & PIR insulation) has failed... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-test-report-dclg-bs-8414-test-no3 It failed because the fire spread too much causing the test to be terminated early. One article says 13 buildings over 18 meters are affected. That fits with my own view that the primary fuel source was off-gassing from the PIR. Right from the very start I felt strongly that the very thin PE core inside the aluminium composite sandwich cladding was unlikely to be the primary fuel source, given that many earlier fire tests, from years before the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was even planned, showed that PIR, with one face open to an air supply and heat source, burned very readily, and allowed fire to spread extremely quickly. The question now will be whether or not the people responsible for the design and specification of the Grenfell Tower external insulation and cladding should have been aware of the risk. I would argue very strongly that they should have. I had heard about, and read up on, the risk from EWI back in 2012, as a consequence of the thread on the AECB forum. That thread linked to reports of several facade fires, and there seemed to be a great deal of evidence to show that flammable external insulation systems posed a significant fire risk, and that the risk is much greater for taller buildings, where the chimney effect, pulling air in to the fire, is much more pronounced. This was a wholly preventable fire. The knowledge of the fire spread risk from using these materials was widespread. The deficiencies in the insulation material that used were well known. If I knew about it in 2012, as a complete amateur, unconnected with the construction industry, then there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for all those involved in this project not to have known as well by 2014, when they were designing the Grenfell Tower installation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 1 hour ago, JSHarris said: That fits with my own view that the primary fuel source was off-gassing from the PIR. Right from the very start I felt strongly that the very thin PE core inside the aluminium composite sandwich cladding was unlikely to be the primary fuel source, given that many earlier fire tests, from years before the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was even planned, showed that PIR, with one face open to an air supply and heat source, burned very readily, and allowed fire to spread extremely quickly. I would agree with that in principle. BUT I am sure I heard somewhere, that combination of mineral wool insulation with this cladding also failed the test. If that is true what was the fuel source for that? Does mineral wool really burn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, ProDave said: I would agree with that in principle. BUT I am sure I heard somewhere, that combination of mineral wool insulation with this cladding also failed the test. If that is true what was the fuel source for that? Does mineral wool really burn? The devil is in the detail as to what was actually tested, and to what standard it was being assessed, plus whether or not the certification requirements actually required a test. Mineral wool doesn't burn, but when tested to the requirements of BS 8414-1, the composite cladding without the fire retardant core, failed. The fire spread up the composite cladding, although it seems that the intensity of the fire was low. It failed because it still allowed a fire to spread from one dwelling to another, which is something the regulations are specifically intended to try and prevent. However, there wasn't a legal requirement for the cladding to actually be tested. Certification is allowed from a desk top study, and only needs to comply with BS 476 in order to be given a BBA certificate. That's what happened in this case; the aluminium composite material, even though it was intended to be used as external cladding, was only ever certified to Class 0 under BS 476, and was never tested to the BS 8414-1 standard for cladding. The people responsible used a loophole in the regulations to get away with doing this. They may have provided certificates showing that both the insulation and the cladding met the requirements of BS 476 Class 0, but I'm equally sure that they knew, or suspected, that neither would meet the requirements of BS 8414-1. Arguably the building inspector should have picked them up on this, and demanded to see evidence that the insulation and cladding installation was designed to resist the spread of fire, and that it met the requirements of BS 8414-1, as well as Part B, but that doesn't seem to have happened. My view is that a large part of the reason for this failure may have been the main contractors decision to do this work under a Building Notice, as they would have known that by taking this route they would avoid a detailed examination of the plans (they wouldn't have been required to submit detailed plans at all under a Building Notice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 11 minutes ago, JSHarris said: My view is that a large part of the reason for this failure may have been the main contractors decision to do this work under a Building Notice, as they would have known that by taking this route they would avoid a detailed examination of the plans (they wouldn't have been required to submit detailed plans at all under a Building Notice). We built an extension to our 1930's house under a building notice. My experience was the building control inspector was very thorough as he had to check every detail on site as there was nothing on any drawing to be approved. So there were a lot more site visits and a lot more interaction than the house I am building now. Regardless of the BC route taken, the outcome should have been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Just now, ProDave said: We built an extension to our 1930's house under a building notice. My experience was the building control inspector was very thorough as he had to check every detail on site as there was nothing on any drawing to be approved. So there were a lot more site visits and a lot more interaction than the house I am building now. Regardless of the BC route taken, the outcome should have been the same. I agree that the outcome should have been the same, but I can't help but wonder if the building inspector really went out on the platform being used to fit this cladding and carefully inspected all the fire stops, intumescent strips, etc that should have been in place, and whether he/she ever questioned whether materials that were only certified to BS 476 Class 0 were suitable as a means of preventing the spread of fire. What is clear is that the cladding system (including insulation) was not tested to BS 8414-1. Had it been, it would have failed and should not have been installed. For whatever reason, the use of materials that only carried a Class 0 rating was taken as being compliant with the building regulations, so the big question will be who carries the greatest degree of liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Just now, ProDave said: I would agree with that in principle. BUT I am sure I heard somewhere, that combination of mineral wool insulation with this cladding also failed the test. If that is true what was the fuel source for that? Does mineral wool really burn? That was the second test in the table and yes it failed. Basically they seem to working through the most likely problem combinations first. Hopefully the next test will pass as that uses the retardant version of the cladding panel but I wouldn't bet on it. Edited August 11, 2017 by Temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) The results of the 4th test are out (Stone wool and fire retardant filler in the ACM) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-test-report-dclg-bs-8414-test-no4 It appears it may have passed the fire test but with some structural issues??? The reports are short on commentary but the web page says... "The test result shows that this combination of materials can meet the criteria set out in building regulations guidance BR 135." Edited August 11, 2017 by Temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Updated table.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 The results of the 5th test (PIR insulation and ACM with filler of limited combustibility) are out and it passed... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-test-report-dclg-bs-8414-test-no5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 (edited) It seems the government have added a 7th combination (Phenolic insulation and ACM with fire retardant filler) to the list for testing. This test seems to have been done before test 6 and surprisingly it failed... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-building-owners-large-scale-wall-system-test-7 I'll add it to the table when I get to my normal PC. Edited August 21, 2017 by Temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 (edited) Updated Table. The number of buildings affected comes from press reports. Edited August 22, 2017 by Temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now