SootySport Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 46 minutes ago, Rory's Dad said: For clarification... Rain can get past the rain screen cladding (it's just a screen) and the airspace behind is designed to be ventilated to allow any rain that did get through to be dried off. The impact of fire getting into this space is what made the spread of fire so considerable. This is my understanding of what happened as well. The fact it was a Hot and Windy day, didn't help either, actually night time but was still hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark (smokey mow) Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Rory's Dad said: For clarification... Rain can get past the rain screen cladding (it's just a screen) and the airspace behind is designed to be ventilated to allow any rain that did get through to be dried off. The impact of fire getting into this space is what made the spread of fire so considerable. 14 minutes ago, SootySport said: This is my understanding of what happened as well. The fact it was a Hot and Windy day, didn't help either, actually night time but was still hot. The Building Regulations requires cavity barriers to be fitted in the void behind the cladding to prevent fire spread within the enclosed cavity. The cavity barriers should be positioned horizontally on the line of the floors and also vertically on the line of the party walls between flats, this should ensure that the fire is contained. I'm sure as part of the ongoing investigation the authorities will be looking to see if these were fitted correctly or indeed fitted at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootySport Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 See what you mean Mark, I'm sure the heat and the wind didn't help though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory's Dad Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Mark (smokey mow) - Joint Essex AO said: The Building Regulations requires cavity barriers to be fitted in the void behind the cladding to prevent fire spread within the enclosed cavity. The cavity barriers should be positioned horizontally on the line of the floors and also vertically on the line of the party walls between flats, this should ensure that the fire is contained. I'm sure as part of the ongoing investigation the authorities will be looking to see if these were fitted correctly or indeed fitted at all. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 There has already been some suggestion that these cavity barriers were either omitted or poorly/sparsely fitted. There will heads rolling all over the place eventually. Multus sanguis fluit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kit Car Electronics Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 A forensic report here shows how well understood this problem already was, sadly: http://www.probyn-miers.com/perspective/2016/02/fire-risks-from-external-cladding-panels-perspective-from-the-uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 http://www.itv.com/news/2017-07-06/how-safe-are-our-high-rises/ truly shocking ITV programme showing how previous disasters not only failed to lead to improved safety measures but in 2005, fire safety checks were deregulated according to the The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. They went from the hands of the fire service, to local authorities, who often hire private firms to conduct them. Most have relevant qualifications, accreditations and expertise to carry out risk assessments. But it is quite easy to set yourself up as an assessor - you don’t need qualifications and you can get your certificate online. Concerns about the competency of some of the people carrying out these assessments are worrying the fire service: This was during the Blair/Brown Labour Government. I fear at the end of the inquiry it will be another "lesson learned" statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonPeffers Posted November 17, 2020 Author Share Posted November 17, 2020 16 nov 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/16/fire-test-for-grenfell-foam-cladding-panels-was-rigged-admits-ex-employee "Fire test for Grenfell foam cladding panels was rigged, admits ex-employee". The article goes on to say "A first test in February 2014 failed in 26 minutes, with flames engulfing the (test) rig. But after changing some of the materials used around the insulation, including adding concealed fire-retardant panels, a second test three months later passed and was used to market the foam boards as safe for high-rise buildings". Seems the concealed fire-retardant panels were only for the fire test and not in the marketed product. A very troubling allegation some 41 months after the fire. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory's Dad Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 The whole thing is an absolute disgrace. Dreadful for those that died, dreadful for those that survived and dreadful for their families and friends. I hope the changes that this hearing will recommend will be far reaching and include a spell inside for the crooks and idiots that were "in charge". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff oakley Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 Until we have the final results I will remain suspicious of who to blame. Is it the people who conducted the test, those who allegedly cheated it, or those who approve it's use. Or indeed those who didn't look at evacuation and fire fighting in a highrise like this. It seems a catalogue of error, or criminality, where all share some blame for the devastation it caused. What makes it even worse is that the delay in finding out the truth is astounding, every day it drags on justice for those who died is not delivered. I agree we need to see people serving jail time, not as revenge but as a warning to others that lives matter more than money 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kit Car Electronics Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 This just gets worse. I feel sick and will never be using Celotex products ever again https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/26/celotex-executive-wrote-what the devil-on-fire-test-report-grenfell-inquiry-hears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff oakley Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 Yes the news gets worse and if someone doesn't do time then there is no justice. I am guessing the real culprits will throw some nobody under the bus and claim they never asked anyone to do this. I bet shredders were working flat out when the building was on fire and hard drives being wiped whilst the bodies were being brought out. Shocking and as I said before so many involved have serious questions to answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 I've used this material and I'm not at all surprised that it burns readily. It is 90%+ polyurethane rigid foam with a very thin membrane of aluminium facing on either side as a vapour barrier I assume. Fixing the test is astonishing, and the test house, if indeed there was a test house rather than an internal lab, should bear a proportion of the blame too for lack of vigilance. I've used Yarsley Labs and another whose name I forget for flammability/integrity tests on injection moulded, steel reinforced pallets, and spread of flame for cladding panels, and in both cases the test house kept a very close eye on goings-on because their own reputation hung on the integrity of the tests' conditions. As an aside, the pallets were tested by our partners in the product development, Metal Box Company, and were carried out in the airship hangars at Cardington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 I've used this material and I'm not at all surprised that it burns readily. It is 90%+ polyurethane rigid foam with a very thin membrane of aluminium facing on either side as a vapour barrier I assume. Fixing the test is astonishing, and the test house, if indeed there was a test house rather than an internal lab, should bear a proportion of the blame too for lack of vigilance. I've used Yarsley Labs and another whose name I forget for flammability/integrity tests on injection moulded, steel reinforced pallets, and spread of flame for cladding panels, and in both cases the test house kept a very close eye on goings-on because their own reputation hung on the integrity of the tests' conditions. As an aside, the pallets were tested by our partners in the product development, Metal Box Company, and were carried out in the airship hangars at Cardington. The leaseholders should not only not be expected to pay a penny for remedying the faulty cladding on the dozens of blocks still fitted with Celotex, but the guilty parties who allowed the non-compliant materials to be used should pay for that and compensation for disruption during the remedial work. The leaseholders bought in good faith and are entirely innocent in this whole debacle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark (smokey mow) Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 17 minutes ago, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said: Fixing the test is astonishing, and the test house, if indeed there was a test house rather than an internal lab, should bear a proportion of the blame too for lack of vigilance. testing is completely independent and not done by the manufacturers. My understanding having followed the enquiry is that a key component that was used by Celotex in the test model to obtain the required test result was omitted from their marketing material when they advertised it as suitable for the application. The BRE test does not appear to have been fraudulent. there are currently many questions however about how the insulation was subsequently marketed By Celotex and how key information was omitted in their own publicAtion of the test results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.