Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2017
     
    Posted By: fostertom"Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, has told senior figures in local government that councils will be fully reimbursed for any building work carried out on tower blocks that could face a similar fire risk to that of Grenfell Tower."


    Presumably that's just council owned blocks?
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2017
     
    Indeed - although I would rather hope that they did this before the cladding was installed rather than before it went up (as it were)

    For Borpin, what CFOA say is:

    FRS enforce the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for almost all places in England and Wales, except those used solely for domestic purposes. However, even in domestic premises such as flats, the common or shared areas still come under the regulations. Someone who is proved to have failed to comply with the Fire Safety Order is guilty of a criminal offence and may be charged accordingly.

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2017
     
    I see from the BBC we have four names of central politicians whose names are in the frame. At least one of those should be on the list to go to prison. I trust eventually we'll get to know the local politicians that were involved and the officials and commercial people who are responsible so we can add them to the list. How many years in prison are 79 (and counting) lives worth?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789

    I'm not sure what to make of Javid's reported offer. On the one hand it is rewarding delay and brinkmanship by local authorities but on the other hand he must be horrified by the thought of a second such fire.
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2017 edited
     
    Good to see a slightly more sober discission of this tragedy here than I've seen online generally.

    I think it should be a wake up call for many people and organisations. That said, we do have to wait until we really understood what went wrong before making hasty changes to legislation and so on.

    The standard of reporting on this, from a technical point of view, has been pretty poor in most of the media.

    Also as others have said there's a danger that this taints the reputation of all retrofit energy efficiency measures. Obviously the inhabitants of this building were horribly let down by all the processes that failed to prevent this. But as far as I can make out there was no sinister motive in applying the new cladding. It was supposed to improve living conditions. There is an idea that seems to have taken remarkably strong hold that the cladding was added to improve the view from nearby luxury housing developments. As far as I can see, that's fully nonsense. But I can see that similar retrofit schemes, regardless of fire safety, could start to be opposed as symbols of prettification or gentrification; measures taken not for the benefit of social housing tenants but the surrounding bourgeoisie.

    It makes me think of another trend I've noticed recently here in London which is opposition to schemes to reduce car usage and make urban areas more cycle and pedestrian friendly. These too have become associated with gentrification and we end up with them being opposed by many from a demographic with very low car ownership. The wealthy car owners get to continue to drive their vehicles through London's poorer wards because the residents are fearful of the encroachment of pavement wine bars and associated house price increases. This fear stirred up by simplistic ideas promoted by clickbait media. Frustrating and counterproductive. I think we might see similar things following from this disaster.
  1.  
    Posted By: lineweightThere is an idea that seems to have taken remarkably strong hold that the cladding was added to improve the view from nearby luxury housing developments. As far as I can see, that's fully nonsense.
    The tower residents rep (having lived in the tower for 20+ years) explained in BBC news (I think) that the block was hard to heat, as the heating wasn't really up to it and that there were mould problems - it was she (on behalf of residents) who pushed for cladding. So yes, utter tosh.
    • CommentAuthorgyrogear
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    Posted By: djhAt least one of those should be on the list to go to prison.


    and I'd humbly suggest that the following is not entirely out of context, neither...

    www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40189828

    "These departments obviously consider themselves too important to be accountable to the public and are just ignoring the FOI Act. This is not hard pressed FOI officers struggling to meet deadlines, it looks like deliberate flouting of the law."

    Mr Frankel adds: "The commissioner can stop this at a stroke. She can issue enforcement notices which will expose officials or ministers to the risk of fines or even imprisonment if they don't comply. The commissioner needs to start taking action."

    gg
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    +1
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    Posted By: GotanewlifeThe tower residents rep (having lived in the tower for 20+ years) explained in BBC news (I think) that the block was hard to heat, as the heating wasn't really up to it and that there were mould problems - it was she (on behalf of residents) who pushed for cladding. So yes, utter tosh.


    Have you got any reference for this? Significant if true.
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    Surely it's obvious (to us)? Something has to be done about all dwellings of poor performance, either knocking them down or retrofitting (while also improving safety).
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertomEnsure any building control sign-off has taken into account the fire safety regulations (with a number of councils getting independent specialists to check cladding).
    Posted By: borpinI doubt Grenfell would have failed this test.
    Really? So not a matter of insufficiently retardant insulation and lack of firestops, contrary to Regs? You reckon good compliance, but Regs inadequate? Or discretionary 'risk assessment' (in lieu of hard prescriptive requirements) abused?
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    Your an Architect Tom - what would you consider when specifying the external cladding system ?

    Ie what criteria would you look at

    Aesthetics

    Cost

    Ease of fixing

    Compliance with surface spread of flame criteria

    Fire stopping

    Not necessarily in that order

    Would you speak with a cladding company or make entirely unilateral decisions

    Regards

    Barney
  2.  
    The firemen got there quickly and put out a fire at the fridge on the 4th floor. They were walking out of the block and saw the outside on fire.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    As a separate incident, or as a result of the fridge fire?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    Posted By: barneyYour an Architect Tom - what would you consider when specifying the external cladding system ?
    All of the above, sooner or later, before committing anything. I don't need convincing about taking fire seriously - don't regard fire rules as bureaucracy to be outwitted - unless it's obviously stupid/inadequate.

    Apart from the last point (possibly stupid/inadequate) I'd be more comfortable with applying prescriptive rules, that having to make, or trusting some privatised person/body to make, discretionary 'risk assessment' instead. To me, that's an invitation to commercial pressures, esp if it's known that there's no higher authority with teeth to do spot checks - no risk except of being judged in court/inquest after a disaster.

    Press suggestions that evidential documents are being shredded as we speak.
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertomReally? So not a matter of insufficiently retardant insulation and lack of firestops, contrary to Regs? You reckon good compliance, but Regs inadequate? Or discretionary 'risk assessment' (in lieu of hard prescriptive requirements) abused?
    I think this is a failure of design; a design that I think we will find has been used many times. The interaction between the parts has not been understood or considered properly. BCO has signed it off - ultimately they are surely the authority that confirms the design? we have all seen issues with BCO where their knowledge is simply not good enough.

    Interestingly from the BBA Certificate (I think I got the right one);

    "Particular attention should be paid to preventing the spread of fire from within a building breaching the cladding system through window and door openings."

    and

    "6.5 For resistance to fire, the performance of a wall incorporating the product, can only be determined by tests from a suitably accredited laboratory, and is not covered by this Certificate."

    Now there is a get out clause if ever I read one...

    So fire in building - melts UPVC windows, gets into the core of the ACM and woosh. This then melts the UPVC windows getting into each fire compartment (flat), as folk open fire doors on each flat to escape, the smoke gets into the stairwell. Smoke vent never designed to cope with multiple fires so it gets overwhelmed and the rest is history.

    Sprinklers might have helped initially but as more came on the water pressure would go (no header tank as retrofitted) and the fire would still have been able to go upwards. Probably not hot enough in stairwell to trigger the sprinkler system until too late.

    There are plenty of examples in history where a design was found to be flawed. Unfortunately they usually cost lives in the process. No one person to blame just cumulative effect.
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    Posted By: fostertomPress suggestions that evidential documents are being shredded as we speak.
    It is really difficult to erase electronic documents completely.
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    Posted By: borpinIt is really difficult to erase electronic documents completely.
    true - if e.g. police are empowered/instructed to sieze hard drives - the worry is that no one is treating it that seriously.
    • CommentAuthorArtiglio
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2017
     
    http://raedwald.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/grenfell-tower.html

    Seems a reasonable article, any building professionals agree or otherwise with whats said?
    • CommentAuthorjfb
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2017
     
    I didn't think that this was true from the above article = "What we know from the photographs and news reports is that rockwool was used - correctly - for the insulation but so it seems was the inflammable PE foam - if only in a 5mm thick layer in the middle of an aluminium sandwich for the rainscreen cladding."

    I thought rock wool wasn't used as the primary insulation layer but maybe I just assumed it was plastic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2017 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Artiglio</cite>http://raedwald.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/grenfell-tower.html >
    Further down, after excellent informed comments from others, Raedwald says:

    "... horrified to say it does look like an unbranded Kingspan-type material in that pic; on the face of it, this can't be used over 18m for inhabited buildings BUT looking at the Kingspan website, they offer a neat guide for getting around the Building Regs - http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/dc8cf2c7-5e23-4d9a-9a1f-96bdf571ecdd/Techncial-Bulletin--Routes-to-Compliance--Fire-Saf.aspx

    The seemingly unbranded material itself raises many questions - BBA Agrément Certificate? Fire testing / compliance? Case study exemption data using this product? If it was just a cheap knock-off Kingspan clone from Thailand it makes for unbelieveable negligence."

    Further on down the comments:

    "It appears from the RB K and C building control website that this work was carried out under a building notice, as for a small kitchen extension, rather than a full plans approval application. The current status of the building notice is 'Completed Not approved' (https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/bconline/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_RBKC_BCAPR_124682 )"
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2017
     
    I don't rate the Raedwald article myself. First the confusion between PE and EPS foams for use in EWI, and then a confusion between rockwool going on Kingspan phenolic and the Celotex PIR that was actually in place. Phenolic is a thermosetting plastic (i.e doesn't drop molten flaming balls) that produces water and carbon dioxide as combustion products, PIR is a thermoplastic (i.e. does drop molten flaming balls) that produces combustion products including hydrogen cyanide. He doesn't seem to understand much about insulation.

    Right on the money about power and politics though.

    Why are there no documents available associated with that rbkc item? Is that normal for building control?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2017 edited
     
    .
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2017
     
    Posted By: djhI don't rate the Raedwald article myself. First the confusion between PE and EPS foams for use in EWI, and then a confusion between rockwool going on Kingspan phenolic and the Celotex PIR that was actually in place. Phenolic is a thermosetting plastic (i.e doesn't drop molten flaming balls) that produces water and carbon dioxide as combustion products, PIR is a thermoplastic (i.e. does drop molten flaming balls) that produces combustion products including hydrogen cyanide. He doesn't seem to understand much about insulation.



    Yes I also thought it was a bit confused, more interesting are the comments below.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2017
     
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-latest-victims-rehoused-2bn-kensington-luxury-apartment-block-68-flats-a7800856.html

    "Survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire are to be permanently rehoused in a £2bn luxury apartment block in Kensington, the Government has announced.

    Some 68 one, two and three-bedroom flats have been bought by the Government at the Kensington Row development in upmarket High Street Kensington, Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, said."


    I understand they are the "affordable flats" that the developer was required to build to get PP. Probably won't have access to the same facilities as the luxury apartments which start at £1.6m
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2017
     
    PS Spare a thought for the people that lived near the block but not actually in it. They can't go home until it's made safe/demolished. Not sure what's being done to help them.
  3.  
    Hi,
    According to the Telegraph online to day (article about 600+ towers having combustible cladding) the cladding was Celotex RS500 polyisocyanurate PIR between two Reynobond aluminium panels.
    For clarity can someone confirm that is this just the rain screen cladding which would have fronted some thicker thermal insulation of another material.
    Leaving the politics aside I’m struggling for hard technical details in my understanding of the causes and contributory factors.

    Cheers
    Mike up North
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2017
     
    Interesting discussion here about the relationship between the various classifications the the Building Regs. Last comment on this page most interesting.

    http://www.bdonline.co.uk/grenfell-cladding-is-banned-in-the-uk-says-chancellor/5088271.article
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2017
     
    Posted By: Mike (Up North)Hi,
    According to the Telegraph online to day (article about 600+ towers having combustible cladding) the cladding was Celotex RS500 polyisocyanurate PIR between two Reynobond aluminium panels.


    No, the Celotex boards were the primary insulation, attached to the face of the building.

    Then, in front of that with an air gap behind, were the Reynobond panels. They don't have any insulation role, just aesthetic and rainscreen. They have a thin (a few mm) core of polyethylene between two layers of aluminium. That core is to give them rigidity.

    It's the Reynobond panels, rather than the Celotex boards, that seem the focus of suspicion as far as I can see.
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2017 edited
     
    Camden preparing to remove similar panels from one of their towers:

    http://camdennewjournal.com/article/exclusive-cladding-removed

    The contractors are saying that what they installed was what was specified and signed of by BC. Camden seems not to agree.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press