Tower block fire - london

[jpaul]

The government seems shy to reveal the exact nature of the testing the cladding is undergoing , rather it is just a black box yes/no process.
BBC had a housing organisation representative who said their cladding had now been classified as class3, not the 0 he had on certificate, but he did not know why.
The dramatic 100% cladding test failures also seems unsurprising if organizations have initially sent samples from their buildings with the RaynoBond PE product, or
even, just with a PE core; we are just learning that an PE core is now a failure.

Why no demand for openness to show how the standards are being interpreted, other cladding manufacturers must also have an interest.

Is it know whether these manufacturers had self-certified their products to BS standards or an independant body.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Probably because it's now a criminal investigation.

 

[Hagar]

I presume that these and similar cladding boards are cut on site or in a factory to suit the size required for the actual building fitment. Hence one, two or more edges expose the inner 'plastic' core. It may be that the original manufacturer testing applied the fire test to a full panel without considering this. It would be a fail IMO if this had occurred. The use of the system may have considered that all edges would be sealed with an intumescent strip to overcome this weakness and this precaution may have not been applied or applied wrongly.

also, this from today is a good analysis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40357628

 

[StriderX]

Well if the fire in the flat was hot enough, the aluminium may have absorbed enough heat to auto-ignite the plastic. As well as the air gap basically allowing free passage straight upwards. But this is guessing, so just have to wait on the official fire report when it comes.

 

[Top_gun]

I'm sure this has been discussed in more detail in this thread, but this seems a good, but very damning, précis of the current situation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266

Accepted professional practice has systematically reduced the fire resistance of our tall buildings.

Put the directors of these organisations responsible for accepted professional practice in the dock, along side the Tory scums from Kensington and Chelsea council, for corporate manslaughter. Surely, the accepted starting point for professional practice is not to corrode safety in tall buildings. Persistent downgrading of standards makes them just as culpable as Kensington and Chelsea is for the fire at Grenfell Tower.

 

[LOAM]

Put the directors of these organisations responsible for accepted professional practice in the dock, along side the Tory scums from Kensington and Chelsea council, for corporate manslaughter. Surely, the accepted starting point for professional practice is not to corrode safety in tall buildings. Persistent downgrading of standards makes them just as culpable as Kensington and Chelsea is for the fire at Grenfell Tower.

The issue with the above is what do you charge them with? NHBC nor approved inspectors had nothing to do with Grenfell, it was inspected by LA Building Control Officers using government legislation. So whilst the BBC article is headline grabbing and makes for an interesting read, in the context of this specific project its worthless. Beyond highlighting an issue that may or not be prevalent in the approved inspector discipline, are they suggesting every approved inspector is doing this or just some? Its required information. NHBC doesn't surprise me, its been known as Nice House Badly Constructed for as long as I can remember in the industry.,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ions-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding

Its right to question why approved inspectors are allegedly signing off on sub standard products and not using official testing rates but LA inspectors are as well and they use the approved documents.

 

[Top_gun]

The issue with the above is what do you charge them with? NHBC nor approved inspectors had nothing to do with Grenfell, it was inspected by LA Building Control Officers using government legislation. So whilst the BBC article is headline grabbing and makes for an interesting read, in the context of this specific project its worthless. Beyond highlighting an issue that may or not be prevalent in the approved inspector discipline, are they suggesting every approved inspector is doing this or just some? Its required information. NHBC doesn't surprise me, its been known as Nice House Badly Constructed for as long as I can remember in the industry.,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ions-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding

Its right to question why approved inspectors are allegedly signing off on sub standard products and not using official testing rates but LA inspectors are as well and they use the approved documents.

The article doesn't make clear if the inspectors are fully fledged staff council staff or if Kensington & Chelsea employs inspection contractors on short term contracts to scrutinise building projects on their behalf.

I doubt if Kensington and Chelsea have in-house building inspectors on the basis they have around 9450 properties and where 27 per cent of these are owned by leaserholders. I suspect, similar to Southwark Council who are one of the largest provider of council homes in the country, employs building inspection contractors to scrutinise building projects.

I stand by my originate comments. If the directors of these organises who water down building regulations aren't linked to the Grenfell Tower then I feel they can be banned for being a director if they have found to behave in a reckless manner.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/identifying-directors.htm

 

[LOAM]

Well they certainly have their own building control department which is large enough to accept deposits nationally. I don't see what relevance how many properties the council own is though? They won't all be undertaking refurbishment work concurrently.

They are responsible for plans checking submitted to them from the entire borough, not just their own stock. They will cover considerably more than 9000+ properties. I know building control officers in Nottingham that deal with 5000+ within their designated area, on their own.

The article says it was inspected by the LA BCO's so it's safe to say they were the council's officers.

The proposed plans and other details submitted were reviewed by RBKC [Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea] building control,” the council said in a statement. “While a formal decision notice was not issued for the plans, the plans submitted were fully vetted by building control with comments provided; these comments were then followed up by the site inspection regime. Site inspections began on the 29/08/2014 with 16 inspections undertaken with final completion issued on the 07/07/2016 and a completion certificate issued.

Rest assured if they had contracted that to approved inspectors, you would know about it from their statement.

 

[stewski]

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.

As you say aluminum is energy intensive also ignoring that those choosing to clad tower blocks generally have a range of likely less efficient housing stock to consider is a total dodge of the question!

Can decision makers show that cladding has been added on reasonable evidence based grounds to improve energy efficiency?

 

[stewski]

Additionally if funding is given to local councils to improve energy efficiency via insulation upgrades is it being allocated by central government using sound evidence based reasoning!

 

[Orionaut]

As you say aluminum is energy intensive also ignoring that those choosing to clad tower blocks generally have a range of likely less efficient housing stock to consider is a total dodge of the question!

Can decision makers show that cladding has been added on reasonable evidence based grounds to improve energy efficiency?

Aluminium is energy intensive to smelt from ore (As is Copper, which is also purified using electrolysis as part of the process). But it has a low melting point and a low heat capacity so is very easy, in energy terms, to recycle.

Unfortunately it also burns vigorously once the temperature is high enough

(Most things will burn eventually. there are relatively few materials that can be truly regarded as "Fireproof", as in inert at very high temperatures in the presence of Oxygen, Surprisingly, Reactor grade Graphite comes very close, but thats another story.... )

 

[Dis86]

Aluminium is energy intensive to smelt from ore (As is Copper, which is also purified using electrolysis as part of the process). But it has a low melting point and a low heat capacity so is very easy, in energy terms, to recycle.

Unfortunately it also burns vigorously once the temperature is high enough

(Most things will burn eventually. there are relatively few materials that can be truly regarded as "Fireproof", as in inert at very high temperatures in the presence of Oxygen, Surprisingly, Reactor grade Graphite comes very close, but thats another story.... )

Which is an issue in itself. These new tests that the cladding is being subjected to are completely unknown and very subjective.

As you say most things will burn eventually...

 

[LOAM]

I would think the landlords had to provide EPC's and or SAP calcs to Building Control, even though they wouldn't have needed to have passed.

 

[Top_gun]

Rest assured if they had contracted that to approved inspectors, you would know about it from their statement.

Not necessarily.

 

[Hagar]

Which is an issue in itself. These new tests that the cladding is being subjected to are completely unknown and very subjective.

As you say most things will burn eventually...

They are being tested to British Standards by authorised testing houses. Any other method of testing would be immediately contested by the cladding manufacturers as unreliable. BS476 I expect.

The building regulations stipulates the rules and the degree of fire resistance of the elements of structure. However the British standard 476 dictates the appropriate fire tests for these elements of structure/materials and grades the level of fire resistance.

 

[Dis86]

They are being tested to British Standards by authorised testing houses. Any other method of testing would be immediately contested by the cladding manufacturers as unreliable. BS476 I expect.

The building regulations stipulates the rules and the degree of fire resistance of the elements of structure. However the British standard 476 dictates the appropriate fire tests for these elements of structure/materials and grades the level of fire resistance.

No. That's what they were tested to previously.

 

[jpaul]

a reasonable summary by nytimes :

U.K. Officials Said Material on Tower Was Banned. It Wasn’t.

If Britain had already banned the material that appears to have spread the fire — as the ministers asserted on Sunday — that would move responsibility for the disaster away from the government and point instead to possible crimes by the tower’s owners and their contractors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/world/europe/uk-grenfell-tower-london-fire.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/world/europe/uk-grenfell-tower-london-fire.html

 

[ubersonic]

a reasonable summary by nytimes :

Their article is wrong, they are confusing not being banned outright for being fine for use, as opposed to banned for use on buildings over 18m.

 

[ubersonic]

Most things will burn eventually. there are relatively few materials that can be truly regarded as "Fireproof"

Asbestos is one, hence why it's still legal to use it in nuclear or military installations (same goes for Halon fire suppression, which as also the best you can get but bad for humans/environment).

 

[Top_gun]

If Kensington and Chelsea council had a meaningful conversation with the Grenfell Tower residents then they would have avoided the ambiguity of building regulations on cladding by using the safer cladding option.