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.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


widget @ surfing-waves.com




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.




    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
     
    Posted By: CWattersit argued, you could use successful fire tests involving ceramic tiles as a guide to the likely fire safety of a system using aluminium panels
    A bit like the makers of GM seeds who patent their creation because it's effect is dramatically different enough to make lotsa money out of - but escape many rigourous levels of safety testing on grounds that it's 'only 1% changed' from something that's already safety-certified.
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
     
    That BBC article seems to contradict itself.

    Firstly:

    "Part of the engineers' reasoning was that, in a fire test, you would get similar results if you were to use either combustible aluminium panels or non-combustible ceramic tiles."

    but then:

    "Neither of the reports, though, proposed using the same materials as those used on Grenfell Tower. Both reports related to aluminium cladding containing fire retardants."

    Those statements surely can only be compatible if you consider "fire retardant" panels to be "combustible".

    So, is the fire retardant version of the Grenfell panels still somewhat combustible?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
     
    Posted By: lineweightSo, is the fire retardant version of the Grenfell panels still somewhat combustible?

    Yes. Fire retardant doesn't mean it doesn't burn. Just that it doesn't burn as easily/quickly.
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2017
     
    As far as I can make out though, Reynobond FR has a mineral core - not a PE core treated with retardant.

    If the fire engineers were comparing an ACM with a mineral core, with ceramic tiles, then it might well be quite reasonable to say that similar results could be expected.

    I'm not sure I trust the BBC journalist's ability to distinguish between non-combustible/fire retardant/fire restistant and so on.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2017
     
    According to: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-fire-arconic-idUKKBN19F05C

    "The company manufactures three main types of Reynobond panel-- one with a polyethylene (PE) core, one with a fire retardant core and another with a non-combustible core, according to its website."

    But I only see mention of two types on the Alcoa site. There doesn't seem to be a Reynobond site now. So who knows how many types there have been, how many types there now are, or exactly how they were made.

    Speculation without police or inquiry powers is hard to do and pretty hard even then.
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2017 edited
     
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2017
     
    That report was extremely interesting, thanks Colin. I particularly liked the list of individuals recommended to be arrested, as a starting place for justice. I welcomed the news story today that the council and TMO have been put on notice; it's a good start and will hopefully encourage others to be more sensible in their behaviour. But as I understand it, corporate manslaughter charges don't carry individual responsibility, which is what I think is important. So I hope it is just a good start. I hope eventually we see at least some of those named in the report in jail.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2017
     
    Posted By: lineweightQuite a lot to read here:

    https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/the-truth-about-grenfell-tower-a-report-by-architects-for-social-housing/" rel="nofollow" >https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/the-truth-about-grenfell-tower-a-report-by-architects-for-social-housing/


    Thanks, that's a very interesting write up that seems to cover pretty much every aspect of the disaster.

    The Council and TMO may have been at the top of the decision tree and that may make them subject to a corporate manslaughter charge but it seems clear to me the root cause of the problem was much nearer the coal face.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime5 days ago edited
     
  1.  
    One for the GBF Glossary! ACM means Asbestos-Containing Material *and* Aluminium Composite Material.
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTime3 days ago
     
    Which of these was the Grenfell design?
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTime3 days ago
     
    Anyone else hear the clang of that stable door being closed....
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    I think Grenfell had the first one tested. PIR insulation and ACM with PE filler.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    The results of the 5th test (PIR insulation and ACM with filler of limited combustibility) are out and it passed...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-test-report-dclg-bs-8414-test-no5
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    Posted By: borpinAnyone else hear the clang of that stable door being closed....



    The question really is what tests if any have companies been using (if any) to justify use of these 6 combinations to date?
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    Surely if there's one thing we've learnt from the past decade it's that we can't trust companies to test and certify their own products?

    That particular horse bolted a long time ago.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    I suspect someone did once get their "broom" tested and certified and then lots of other companies got their brooms certified on the basis that they were similar, just the handle and head had been changed.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    Updated Table..
      Cladding2.jpg
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    The test results so far suggest that other buildings affected will probably only need the panels changing not the insulation as well. Although I suspect Building Control Inspectors will also be looking closely at the fire barriers between floors etc
  2.  
    Over here the equivalent tower flats have been insulated without any cladding, just the normal thin film render. Does the cladding used in the UK serve any purpose other than to give a decoration and to provide a chimney effect to the underlying insulation
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTime2 days ago edited
     
    Just a different way of keeping the rain off the insulation. I suspect fitting a pre manufactured ACM panel is cheaper than rendering in situ? Rendering probably also requires them to do a much better job of insulating the building (eg no gaps).
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTime2 days ago
     
    I always assumed cladding would be cheaper than rendering (for domestic low rise), but I was told not on these forums... Maybe different at height?
  3.  
    Interesting looking at the timed descriptions of the progress of the fire in the reports.

    Looks like panels with unmodified PE are a no-no regardless of what's behind them. They will burn fiercely and create a self-sustaining fire. So the "system" they are installed in is relatively irrelevant.

    Test 5 passes, leaving the PIR "charred" but not burnt away. That would suggest that the PIR is not the issue, and yet, it's the difference between tests 3 (fail) and 4 (pass). I'm interested to understand why that is. Is it that it doesn't burn away as such, but the charring process somehow contributes to the heat of the fire, turning it into one that can be self-sustaining?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTime6 hours ago
     
    Posted By: lineweightTest 5 passes, leaving the PIR "charred" but not burnt away. That would suggest that the PIR is not the issue, and yet, it's the difference between tests 3 (fail) and 4 (pass). I'm interested to understand why that is. Is it that it doesn't burn away as such, but the charring process somehow contributes to the heat of the fire, turning it into one that can be self-sustaining?

    It does burn but is self-extinguishing. So as long as there is still some fire around it, it burns and produces toxic smoke especially toxic if the temperature is high enough.

    Both the cladding and the insulation are problematic. I expect the last test will be a revelation.
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press