Tower block fire - london

ubersonic said:
The appendices clarify it, there's fire resistance levels cladding/insulation has to meet on both sides and combustion time required. Flammable and instant don't make the grade for resistance and time :p
Click to expand...

Which part of the appendices clarify this? Not saying you are wrong but I'm missing it.

You might be right though, it refers to table 2 for integrity and gives a time of 15mins for insulation for an element more them 1000mm from an adjacent boundary. I guess this would cover it.
 
Last edited:
LOAM said:
Which part of the appendices clarify this? Not saying you are wrong but I'm missing it.

You might be right though, it refers to table 2 for integrity and gives a time of 15mins for insulation for an element more them 1000mm from an adjacent boundary. I guess this would cover it.
Click to expand...


yup its actually very complicated and im surprised its such a cloudy subject.

i am, much more used to brutally clear and obvious regulations.

perhgaps this will be a wake up call for clearer regulation?
 
Tefal said:
yup its actually very complicated and im surprised its such a cloudy subject.

i am, much more used to brutally clear and obvious regulations.

perhgaps this will be a wake up call for clearer regulation?
Click to expand...

Even looking at that again (and again) its still unclear as its very loosely worded and is looking at boundary protection.

Its out of date though because its an act of Parliament and can't be updated quick enough to keep up with how fast things happen in industry. It also gets political (as has been shown) as there is often a push back from MP's to tighten up legislation because it costs their buddies too much money. It needs removing from Parliament and handing to a governing body in the same way the Aviation industry works.
 
LOAM said:
That is because its an act of Parliament and can't be updated quick enough to keep up with how fast things happen in industry. It also gets political (as has been shown) as there is often a push back from MP's to tighten up legislation because it costs their buddies too much money. It needs removing from Parliament and handing to a governing body in the same way the Aviation industry works.
Click to expand...



ahh hthat explains exactly why im used to differnt regulation style (aviation)

i was unaware building regs are a political thing and thought that there would have been a separate buildings regs civilian service thing.
 
Building regulations tend to need to cover any material a person may wish to construct a dwelling from. Straw bales to highly technical composites. Thus it is written in language that regulates but does not prescribe. It needs interpretation from professional people, (who sometimes get it wrong).

If you are using timber, steel, brick or concrete it is relatively easy with design guides and standards for strength and fire resistance. Otherwise you need test data to a recognised approved standard or confirmation of compliance to these codes from manufacturers information.
 
Tefal said:
it has nothing to do with medical aid.

otherwise wed have a nation wide amnesty in all A&E rooms.
Click to expand...

Tefal said:
it makes me uncomfortable to agree with you, but in this instance you have a irrefutable point.
Click to expand...

It's only an irrefutable point if you believe that laws and government policy is always self-consistent. The UK government is on the back-foot and blindsided by a lot of public anger over this tragedy. They will do all sorts of things - even good and helpful things - if it will get them out of the public's crosshairs. It doesn't mean that they will suddenly and immediately do the same thing everywhere and in all circumstances. Do you also believe by the same logic that neighbouring councils donate new social apartments to others displaced by fire for the same "irrefutable" reasons?

Remember Heisenberg's Principle of Government: The act of observing a government changes its behaviour.
 
seems to be a lot of inconsistancy in the Media on panel analysis :-
Radio 4 at lunch time said recent combustability tests were applied was to each of composite cladding components independantly and the PE filling failed,
and they implied original BS qualification was ambiguous, or wrongly appplied, to gain original certification where combustability test had been applied to
whole product, which it passed.
Channel4 evening news did not acknowledege this, and are pursuing that government cuts in the building inspection organisations are responsible.
-The two viewpoints are not completely orthoganal, but nonetheless....

R4 did not say in what manner combustability requirements are less ambiguous in the other countries.
 
Tefal said:
they are seperate it seems.

from some of the news artricles it seems to be

<cladding> <insulatyion> <airgap> <building> as the layering. with the cladding also being "insulation" but not the main property of it. but the firet turned it into some horrific chimney system that also produced cyanide gas from the PIR insulation.





true but if youve ever delt with local councils its a guy who generally wants to "help" but is woefully uninformed so a decent sales pitch about how great this insulation is and how it will save the poor families ionside X will just convince him. esp[ecially when they can say "oh Camden council etc already use this in 10 buildings etc"

this should have been picked up by some stage of regulation checks though.

i just cant belive regs say X product cannot be installed above 18 meters and then it happening.

but i sup[pose its buried in regs and the pay of a local council building inspector etc is low enough to not get that level of dedication.
Click to expand...

Maybe that news articles are separating the piece parts of a composite, traditionally I'd take the word cladding to encompass the materials stuck on the outside of a building!

Whatever you believe the capabilities of councils to be, if decision makers claim to have added cladding to tower blocks without cost versus benefit analysis of either energy efficiency saving versus cost in energy of producing cladding or versus other housing stock they cannot claim the decision was for energy efficiency!
 
stewski said:
Maybe that news articles are separating the piece parts of a composite, traditionally I'd take the word cladding to encompass the materials stuck on the outside of a building!

Whatever you believe the capabilities of councils to be, if decision makers claim to have added cladding to tower blocks without cost versus benefit analysis of either energy efficiency saving versus cost in energy of producing cladding or versus other housing stock they cannot claim the decision was for energy efficiency!
Click to expand...

Well aluminium is terrible to create but infinitely recyclable so providing it doesn't end up in landfill its pretty neutral once out the ground.

The arconic sustainability reports are available here.
http://www.arconic.com/global/en/who-we-are/sustainability-report.asp

Celotex is here
https://www.celotex.co.uk/about/sustainability

They claim to save over 100 times more energy than that used for manufacture, over the lifespan of the product.

I think its worth baring in mind that in these instances its the end user who sees the thermal benefits from overcladding not the client, so from a social housing pov its always energy efficient.
 
jpaul said:
seems to be a lot of inconsistancy in the Media on panel analysis :-
Radio 4 at lunch time said recent combustability tests were applied was to each of composite cladding components independantly and the PE filling failed,
and they implied original BS qualification was ambiguous, or wrongly appplied, to gain original certification where combustability test had been applied to
whole product, which it passed.
Channel4 evening news did not acknowledege this, and are pursuing that government cuts in the building inspection organisations are responsible.
-The two viewpoints are not completely orthoganal, but nonetheless....

R4 did not say in what manner combustability requirements are less ambiguous in the other countries.
Click to expand...
This is presumably a result of the complexity of the factual matrix, the governing legislation, the views of the experts they approach, and their differing editorial focus.
 
Freakbro said:
Summed up with
Accepted professional practice has systematically reduced the fire resistance of our tall buildings.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well it's not wrong, it's an undeniable fact that if this fire had happened a decade ago there would have been zero fatalities and moderate damage to just one flat. Something recent has failed hard (that obviously being putting cladding on tall buildings that wasn't suitable).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom