Yup, that's what the building regs say, that's what the manufacturers say, all we really don't know is why they were used anyway. It appears at this point that the manufacturer's sales dept sold the boards to the cladding installer knowing full well what they were going to do with them (makes them culpable for their greed imo) but not if the installer understood they weren't adequate for what they were doing with them.
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Soldato
Yes, I think retro fitting of cladding or anything really to high rise residential buildings is going to take a severe knock. Not only people wanting to but companies willing to do so.
At the end of the day, you cannot add much mass to these buildings or add more wind load without referencing the foundation design and the structural frame design. The lightweight materials specified are not best suited for the purpose and it is always a risk to do anything.
At the end of the day, you cannot add much mass to these buildings or add more wind load without referencing the foundation design and the structural frame design. The lightweight materials specified are not best suited for the purpose and it is always a risk to do anything.
Soldato
All councils are under obligation to save money, now they are getting flack for apprently saving £300,000 by using cheaper cladding so they can't win either way. Unless it is proven that the council knew the fire rating was not up to EU standards or that the documentation was unknowingly falsified in some way then they cannot take 100% of the blame.
Soldato
and this is why the inquiry will be a whitewash. if the specs say it was class 0 rated, it doesn't matter what we think. All that matters is that there was clear documentation that states this was fit for purpose. If the documentation supporting its rating was falsified then the manufacturer will be going to jail for murder because they knowingly made false statements about the safety of something that if it failed would potentially kill people. The council and the contractors have no case to answer then as they will simply cite the official documentation and specs they were given by the manufacturer.
With regards to other failures, such as inadequate alarms, fire detection and warning systems, fire suppression systems, inappropriate location of utility service points (gas) which will have also contributed to this disaster, the council and the contractors responsible for those aspects of the renovation are front centre when it comes to responsibility.
Soldato
Subject to knowing where they were going to use them as they could have ordered them to use on several projects and depending where they were delivered, either direct to install site or to installers premises.
Soldato
Not entirely as it's obviously been going on for decades since all the samples from buildings tested so far have failed which will cover a wide range of years that those works were carried out. As TM pointed out in parliament it was under Labour (TB) that some regulations were weakened in relation to fire inspections.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ty-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair
Last edited:
Soldato
The joints in a rainscreen can be either open or closed depending on what you are trying to achieve visually. Closed costs a little more as it includes a joint clip which fills the gap. Around window jambs, heads and cills the cladding is returned 90 degrees to close the cavity.
***** Opinion time ******
The use of zinc or the FR variant of the Raymond wouldn't have done anything that different. The RS5000 insulation will burn and its certificate and testing was done with an eternit cladding panel which was cementitious and had never been tested with an ACM panel. Aluminium will melt at 700 degrees so even the FR product would have not protected the PIR which many believe had a significant part to play in the spread of the flame.
I want to know if there were any intumescent barriers in the air gap and around the window reveals / head / cill.
I want to know why the mechanical extract system failed to keep the stair well smoke free
I want to know if its true that the dry risers were out of order....and
I want to know if the fire alarm was working.
There is SO much more to this than the cladding.
The salesmen knew they were being ordered for Grenfell tower as they were asked to supply samples for use on the tower, and due to the amount ordered they cannot claim they thought they were just for the sub 18m section.
Aside from combust at a significantly lower rate and not engulf the entire side of the building in flames before the firemen even arrive trapping people inside, no.
There is, but it is not as important. If the building had not yet been cladded or if this had happened a decade ago the fire would have burnt out a kitchen, maybe a flat, and that would have been the sum total of the damage, there would have been zero deaths. Regardless of all the other factors (which DO need looking at and addressing) the cladding was the single most significant factor in this disaster by an order of magnitude.
Soldato
There's a growing opinion that the PIR was as much, if not more to blame.
It is as important, if the smoke was vented from the stair core then many more people would have got out, fire fighters would have been able to move quicker. Focusing in on one element is really dangerous because it clouds the overall picture. Its really easy to say "these people died because the cladding caught fire" but the truth may well be that "these people died because they couldn't get out". Now one might have caused the other but it needs looking at holistically.
Soldato
Better late than never.
Like I said earlier, completely untenable.
Did he jump or was he pushed?
Did he jump or was he pushed?
Soldato
A fiver says May had a quiet word. They are in full Tory damage limitation mode now
You what? Not that quiet.
"Grenfell Tower fire: Downing Street criticises council over aborted meeting" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40455363
Most people who heard that this morning knew he'd resign today.
Corporate manslaughter...
The cladding is Alcoa's version of Di-Bond. Two versions of the cladding, 'PE' & 'FR' FR standing for fire resistant, and yet the company behind the contract managed to persuade the fire inspection company that the non fire resistant version would behave in the same way as the fr version - and this was signed off!
The cladding is Alcoa's version of Di-Bond. Two versions of the cladding, 'PE' & 'FR' FR standing for fire resistant, and yet the company behind the contract managed to persuade the fire inspection company that the non fire resistant version would behave in the same way as the fr version - and this was signed off!
We're going to see the word precedent used quite a lot. This wasn't the first time this cladding was used and signed off in the country. I suspect due diligence was done regards this aspect. The real issue is with whom ever agreed the first one to be used and signed it off giving a legal precedent.
We clearly need to bring back the old regulation that dictated that external walls and cladding has to be able to withstand fire for a minimum of 1 hour.
Had Thatcher and the Tories not watered down this fire regulation the people in Grenfell would almost certainly still be alive today
Source
Also I'm not sure why councils are spending money removing combustible cladding?
Why not spend similar money and just install external sprinklers like they do in Dubai and Australia ?
Had Thatcher and the Tories not watered down this fire regulation the people in Grenfell would almost certainly still be alive today
SourceAlso I'm not sure why councils are spending money removing combustible cladding?
Why not spend similar money and just install external sprinklers like they do in Dubai and Australia ?
Last edited:
Fully agree his position was untenable. He was out of his depth and the fact he wouldn't allow journalist into a council meeting speaks volumes. Does he not know the meaning of transparency and scrutiny? He badly let down the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire at a time when they needed help the most. Instead he went on a "save our Tory ass" crusade. I echo Sadiq Khan's call to appoint commissioners to run Kensington and Chelsea council in order to restore public confidence in the borough and provide real leadership in helping the Grenfell Tower victims.
We clearly need to bring back the old regulation that dictated that external walls and cladding has to be able to withstand fire for a minimum of 1 hour.
Had Thatcher and the Tories not watered down this fire regulation the people in Grenfell would almost certainly still be alive today
Source
Also I'm not sure why councils are spending money removing combustible cladding?
Why not spend similar money and just install external sprinklers like they do in Dubai and Australia ?
Funnily enough, nearly all of today's problems can be traced back to the Thatcher's government.
However, we shouldn't be just pointing the finger at government but look at the building industry in general who lobby government for the purpose of their increasing profits by watering down regulations. Also holding the government to ransom that they cannot build x number of homes because of y regulations. I would strongly argue the underpinning cause of these scandal is money before safety.
but the presence of the press if often inflammatory (sorry no other word), they often seem to play both sides off against one another (#1), and if you heard the reports this morning from female
councillors at the meeting who were afraid of a breach of the peace at the meeting, you can see why he stopped the meeting.
(#1 many examples :C4 resident interviews - what do you think about ex judges appointment to head inquisition given tha he was unsympathetic/over-ruled in a previous hearing )
Is Sadiq Khan's not empowered to organise an intermediate leadership ? I read it as he is not taking any responsibility to help the residents either, and just passing the buck,
he does not see any merit in cross-party unity in this situation, just worried about his popularity - he has the opportunity to do something useful ?