The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[snowychap]

37 minutes ago, peterms said:

Hmmm.

It still sounds a bit like a politically driven panic reaction rather than a sober assessment of risk.

 

I read that too and wondered about the testing.

The Newsnight report from Chris Cook tonight suggested that bodies such as the NHBC had produced guidance that was more relaxed on the standards of the individual materials involved than were required by the regulations - it went in to much more detail such as not going through actual tests but allowing 'desktop studies' to support their use and, even further, not requiring these studies and reports where there was so much data already available (that's written from memory so apologies if it isn't totally faithful to their report). It was about 5 minutes in to tonight's programme.

[peterms]

It's hard to get a clear picture.  It sounds like the only sensible tests would be in situ, but the govt is asking councils to send in 25cm x 25cm blocks, which won't explain fire performance in real life.

[TrentVilla]

16 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I read that too and wondered about the testing.

The Newsnight report from Chris Cook tonight suggested that bodies such as the NHBC had produced guidance that was more relaxed on the standards of the individual materials involved than were required by the regulations - it went in to much more detail such as not going through actual tests but allowing 'desktop studies' to support their use and, even further, not requiring these studies and reports where there was so much data already available (that's written from memory so apologies if it isn't totally faithful to their report). It was about 5 minutes in to tonight's programme.

I saw it and frankly it was an absolute disgrace (not the report but what was reported), it was self regulation and self governance of the industry by the industry disregarding the actual regulations.

Its becoming clear that there has been systematic failings in both the regulations and the implementation of the regulations, not helped by building inspections being carried out by non Local Authority individuals and companies.

I said from the start nobody is going to jail over this and I stand by that, not least because they wouldn't really know who to jail first.

[chrisp65]

Private building control companies touting for the work of signing off building compliance, in competition against other private building control companies.

If they ask for too many awkward or expensive changes, they don't get appointed on the next job. Somebody more in tune with the builder and developer gets the gig.

Recipe for disaster.

 

[villa4europe]

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Private building control companies touting for the work of signing off building compliance, in competition against other private building control companies.

If they ask for too many awkward or expensive changes, they don't get appointed on the next job. Somebody more in tune with the builder and developer gets the gig.

Recipe for disaster.

thats not really my experience of them, they tend to be involved or have consulted during design stage before the contractor is appointed, you tend to end up with fairly reputable companies ("fun" fact, ive done a few projects with tony pulis' brother who works for building control covering the midlands) and the fees arent anything special, on the contract im currently working for a local council its stayed in house on the clients side

same with CDM coordinators who's role in this is a bit quiet so far, if an unsafe product has been specified they will have as much input as building control, the whole point of CDM is that risks should be designed out

[villa4europe]

On 6/24/2017 at 11:02, snowychap said:

Who was monitoring these works? Who signed off on them? Do they get inspected?

ive been asked to check a couple of my previous projects, got 1 which i'm waiting to hear more details from, the insulation is fine, we tried to value engineer it to something different (think we offered the client about a £30k saving for it too) they checked with their insurance and they said no

the cladding is likely to be the same product, who did those things you ask? everyone...its a product specified by an architect installed to the manufacturers guidelines, designed by the architect with fixing details designed by the subcontractor, signed off by the CDM coordinator (who was the same architect - commonplace), client, project manager, building control the lot

our input in to the product used as main contractor was absolutely none, our input is in to the installation not the specification

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

ive been asked to check a couple of my previous projects, got 1 which i'm waiting to hear more details from, the insulation is fine, we tried to value engineer it to something different (think we offered the client about a £30k saving for it too) they checked with their insurance and they said no

the cladding is likely to be the same product, who did those things you ask? everyone...its a product specified by an architect installed to the manufacturers guidelines, designed by the architect with fixing details designed by the subcontractor, signed off by the CDM coordinator (who was the same architect - commonplace), client, project manager, building control the lot

our input in to the product used as main contractor was absolutely none, our input is in to the installation not the specification

Thanks for the info.

So, everyone involved in the process is 'signing off' and monitoring these things and thus responsible?

The bit of @chrisp65's post that I had concentrated on was the stuff about gas pipes and them passing through areas with thin plywood instead of what was previously 'fire barrier'.

Are you saying that these will have been 'designed'? That the gas work will have been deemed to have been okay? That it was checked and deemed okay or that it was done by someone (or a firm) registered with Gas Safe and thus presumed to be safe, compliant and what not?

I'm asking the questions because you obviously know more about these situations than I do and it's interesting to know what actually goes on.

[villa4europe]

ultimately IMO its the architect's PI that would be paying out, they specified the product, the client, the contractor, the subbie, even probably building control might not have the knowledge. certainly not the knowledge that you'd expect the architect to have, my project the architect specifies alucobond, we know the product, we know the approved installers, we know how long it'll take to get and where it'll come from, how to install it safely and using what equipment, our expertise and role in the project isnt really to go over the finer details of the product and say if its suitable, thats the architect

boxing around the pipes is different though, it probably wont have a detail drawing but should have a spec still, that works will more than likely come under builders work which is more of a grey area which is made up as you go along, if there was boxing of other pipes on site (soilent vent pipes etc) it would be acceptable to do it in ply (although you'd usually do it in MDF)

when we did some gas pipe work on the high rise in sandwell it was definitely fire liner board with then fire sealant gobbing up all the holes in the slab as it went through the floors

the ply used to box the gas pipe would IMO drag the contractor in to the blame, even if the architect had specified ply then they would know its not good building practice, it would more than likely have been done by a carpenter on site, building control should have spotted it too

like id said way back at the start of this thread though, the fireliner board and the fire batt gobbing up the riser etc that should have been there will only be designed to give an hours protection, after that the liner will burn

ive seen fire officers on site maybe 3 times, its usually for timber frame buildings that are in close proximity to other buildings and even then its a ball ache to get them there, they dont have time or arent interested 

 

[blandy]

11 hours ago, peterms said:

It's hard to get a clear picture.  It sounds like the only sensible tests would be in situ...

Sensible to check the flammability of tower block insulation in situ?  I can't see any kind of flaw in that, nope I'm sure that would be just fine, what could possibly go wrong?

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sensible to check the flammability of tower block insulation in situ?  I can't see any kind of flaw in that, nope I'm sure that would be just fine, what could possibly go wrong?

Doh.

Testing the other things that create risk, like whether the required fire stopping has been properly fitted.

The flammability of particular types of panel is already known, isn't it?  Will it become clearer if they burn five, or fifty of the same panel?

I see experts are calling for more info on exactly what tests are being done.

Quote

...Experts have warned that far more comprehensive tests on the entire cladding system are needed to establish if buildings are as at-risk as Grenfell was, including the insulation and design details such as fire stops. The shadow housing secretary, John Healey, told the House of Commons that “cladding is not the whole story”.

“The government is fundamentally flawed in its use of the BRE to conduct overly simplistic and limited fire test samples and not the complete cladding assembly,” said Stephen Mackenzie, a fire risk consultant. “The small scale tests on external panels need to to be extended to a full disassembly.”

He said he had observed the removal of panels in three locations, including in Camden, and said he was worried that “we could be pulling off cladding systems that are potentially OK”.

Tens of thousands of people are facing uncertainty over whether they will be able to stay in their homes and hundreds have already been evacuated from the Chalcots estate towers in north London.

Barry Turner, director of technical policy at Local Authority Building Control, which represents council building control officers also asked: “I would like to know just what tests these panels are failing.”

“For any material to undergo a fire test as laid down in BS476 [which grades fire resistance] or one of the EU equivalent standards, you need a specific panel size, it needs to be mounted in a specific way,” he said. “There are fire tests done on individual products, but you need to test them combined [including insulation, cavity and fire stops] to see if they meet performance criteria for the job as a whole. That is how these systems are assessed for compliance with the building regulations.”...

The government has (oddly) apparently not released information about the exact nature of the tests being done.  Are they mounting them in the way specified and burning them like that?  Or checking how they have been fitted on each block, copying that in the test, and then seeing the results?  It doesn't sound like it.  Having asked to be supplied with one 25cm sq piece, it seems unlikely.  How could they do the kind of test below with such a small piece of material?  And could they really do 100 such tests a day, which is the capacity they claim?

More info needed, I think.

 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

'Serious recommendations' between fire safety officers and tenants?

This can cover two points above and below! - You express that you have little knowledge whereas I have some. I hope you can simply take my word for it because you don't seem the sort to do research for yourself; or we wouldn't be having this conversation!

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

We did nothing of the sort.

In more than one thread, we established that I have no expertise (I think I may have said very little knowledge or something with that gist) with regard to construction regulation much as the majority probably have. In the EU thread, I put the case that I was talking about the processes and politics concerned with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU rather than being drawn in to a discussion about construction regulation about which I knew and know, obviously, much less than you. I said that was pointless.

It was tongue in cheek because you're obsessed with opposing me rather than either accepting I have knowledge you don't, or specifically asking me about a topic! 

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

We're not talking about whether they were being discussed as an option between people designing buildings, making buildings, intending to use them and so on. I'm sure that sprinkler systems have been 'discussed' since sprinkler systems were first thought of.

We're talking about reviews of regulations, what people are instructed to have to do, what are the standards that are being required - not just a sea of discussions, thoughts, considerations and self-regulation.

Exactly. The review process is done at very many levels from designer to central govt. Therefore no-one is to blame, yet. We're nowhere near that stage!

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

The Mayor of London has the powers to require councils to retrofit specific fire-safety measures (whatever they may be), does he?

The coalition government had a 'full term' and May had the full term that she allowed herself. Barwell was one of a succession of ministers durin the last few years of (effectively) the same government.

You're doing it again, blaming others when there is collective fault! The mayor of London has the powers to set up a review, to speak to LA's, to find the funding for improvements and to put conversations onto the agenda....but then for you that's not his job, it's the job of everyone who isn't Labour! 
Funny he can promise to change planning so we get more affordable homes but he can't change the conversation about fire safety. Meh, I guess one wins votes and the other conversation wins the hearts of non-voters.

As we have established and you have confirmed, this isn't your realm so you can either accept facts or keep arguing opposition.

Khan could have done more to drive the agenda, especially with so many Labour councils in London.
The government could have legislated and that includes all ex-housing ministers (plus shadow ones) AND PM.
Local authorities could have imposed planning conditions (the majority of found failed cladding on flats is in Labour councils)
The products pass the fire safety test but perhaps not together, That's two conversations and we are just understanding it all now....before we join the blame game!
The developer clearly looked to save cash as did the designers but then again, pointS above!!!!

McDowell said the residents were - "murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades." Thank god the Labour party is moving on and leaving all those horrible entrenched sorts behind!

On the last point about 'same government'. Nope. This government is very different than the last, particularly in housing. I look forward to you blaming John Healey too, I really like him, he seems genuine, but under your logic and his experience in DCLG, he should be added to the list of accountable and perhaps not the Shadow Minister for Housing,

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Doh.

Testing the other things that create risk, like whether the required fire stopping has been properly fitted.

The flammability of particular types of panel is already known, isn't it?  Will it become clearer if they burn five, or fifty of the same panel?

I see experts are calling for more info on exactly what tests are being done.

The government has (oddly) apparently not released information about the exact nature of the tests being done.  Are they mounting them in the way specified and burning them like that?  Or checking how they have been fitted on each block, copying that in the test, and then seeing the results?  It doesn't sound like it.  Having asked to be supplied with one 25cm sq piece, it seems unlikely.  How could they do the kind of test below with such a small piece of material?  And could they really do 100 such tests a day, which is the capacity they claim?

More info needed, I think.

I'm not a fire expert, far from it. But as an engineer there are a few things from aircraft equipment qualification testing I can think of which might be sort of applicable & relevant:

Firstly, on "flammability of particular types of panel is already known" - well, maybe. But let's have a little think. If building company X says " we fitted panels of type A and the data for type A panels is documented here, so all's well - I'd want to go and check that the panels fitted are as claimed - that would mean taking a small sample(s) from the building and taking them away for analysis. It would also mean going through the records of the builder, looking at procurement orders - sourcing for the panels, for confirmation of the nature of the whole batch purchased, and then tracing fitment of panels to buildings. You'd want to make sure that all the panels are of the right type and there's not a mix. If you can verify, for sure that all the panels on a building are of type A, then a decision on whether to test a sample of those panels can be made. I imagine under the circs, testing would take place regardless, to allow politicians and others to be able to set people's minds at rest - 'yes all the panels on this building have been confirmed to be type A panels, which are fire retardant, and we've also tested (again) a sample from the building and confirmed....etc."

As to the exact nature of the tests being done - it would do no harm to release that information, and might further re-asure people. Realistically it is perhaps likely to consist of a mixture of BS or ISO type standard tests for building material, which is probably about putting a sample in a chamber, or oven, basically, in a flammable atmosphere and then igniting and seeing how long...what chemicals are released...what the residue consists of...what temperature....how quickly...etc.

There should, I guess also be paper trails/audits of the manufacture, sale, purchase, storage, distribution and fitting of the panels to find out where they have come from, what they're made of, where they went and which buildings they were fitted to.

Panel manufacturing processes and materials might also be inspected, with an eye to looking for evidence of traceability, uniformity, consistency of manufacture and quality control...etc.

The tower blocks would need looking at to see that the panels are fitted correctly - with the right gaps, right fittings, right strengthening to hold them in place...all that kind of stuff.

Like I say, I'm an aircraft bod, not a buildings bod, but I can't imagine that there would be that much underlying difference in principles of verification, inspection, audit, qualification etc.

 

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

I'd want to go and check that the panels fitted are as claimed - that would mean taking a small sample(s) from the building and taking them away for analysis.

We are told that these panels are meant to be fitted with fire stopping, so I suppose it will also be important to inspect them in situ.  Presumably if it's not fitted properly, the risk is significantly increased.  I don't know how easy that might be, if it's all covered over and sealed up, but it sounds like it's something that will have to be investigated, unless they are going to rip it all down and start again.

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

As to the exact nature of the tests being done - it would do no harm to release that information, and might further re-asure people.

I really don't understand why they aren't saying more.  People are desperate for reassurance, and saying that an ever-increasing number of samples have failed - 95 as of today, with a 100% failure rate - while failing to get the fire safety experts on board to confirm that the tests are appropriate and adequate, just seems mad.

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

People are desperate for reassurance, and saying that an ever-increasing number of samples have failed - 95 as of today, with a 100% failure rate - while failing to get the fire safety experts on board to confirm that the tests are appropriate and adequate, just seems mad.

I don't know, but I strongly suspect that the tests will have been the legally mandated fire safety tests, conducted by fire safety experts which are almost bound to be of the nature I described above - essentially putting them in a fire chamber with a fire and checking what happens. I'm sure they will be appropriate and adequate and people are right to be concerned that the tested panels fail them.

[TrentVilla]

 

The cladding will be being tested in line with the fire regulations I'm sure, the issue is seemingly that people haven't been complying with the regulations when fitting instead following guidance provided by industry bodies.

[peterms]

Something here about the cladding being known to be combustible.  The role of the BRE will also presumably be considered as part of the investigation.

Quote

The Government was told last year by its own fire investigators that tower blocks were covered in flammable material - but were also told building regulations were "adequate".

The advice was given by the same fire risk experts who are currently testing the cladding on 600 tower blocks - and so far failing every one of them.

The reports were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in April 2016 by BRE Global, formerly the Government's Building Research Establishment, which went on to reassure ministers that building controls, which BRE has influenced since 1948, were "adequate".

The documents seen by Sky News show that in last year's study of tower block fire safety it concluded: "With the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global's fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose."

The documents go on to warn of "an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied. A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks".

BRE is now being paid to test cladding being removed from high rise buildings across the country in response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 79 people are thought to have died after fire spread rapidly up cladding containing combustible insulation and plastic panels.

BRE has been paid by DCLG since at least 2007 to "investigate issues that may have implications for building regulations".

Last week, DCLG said councils and housing associations must "immediately" take action if they have tower blocks with flammable polyethelyne (PE) panelling like that used on Grenfell Tower, which is "unlikely to be compliant with the requirements of the current Building Regulations".

Seventy-five tower blocks have since been identified with unsafe cladding and panelling is being removed from buildings across the country. One, Park Heights in Stockwell, was built last year and won a prestigious design award from The Royal Institute of British Architects.

Sam Webb, a fire safety expert and retired architect who sits on the all-party Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue Group, told Sky News the use of flammable materials on tower blocks is "the biggest failure in the construction industry in British history".

Combustible cladding and insulation were specifically named in planning applications for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment which were approved by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

The design was later changed and an even more dangerous cladding was fitted.

Both the insulation - Celotex RS5000 - and the panels - Reynobond PE - have now been removed from worldwide sale by their respective manufacturers.

 

[snowychap]

 

6 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

 I hope you can simply take my word for it...

That's not how it works.  You don't just get to make a pronouncement that doesn't make sense and then say the above.

6 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

You're doing it again...

No, I'm not. I don't know whence or how you've got something in to your head that any of this is about 'everyone who isn't Labour'.

I am not a Labour supporter, I am not a Labour member, I am not a Labour voter, and never have been. I have also spent a great deal of time in VT Off Topic being critical of Labour so it's self-ecident that I have no problem with doing that.

Quote

As we have established and you have confirmed, this isn't your realm

You seem to fail to understand where your expertise sits in a wider discussion and where the boundaries of your 'realm' lie.

Quote

because you don't seem the sort to do research for yourself; or we wouldn't be having this conversation!

You know what - I'm tired of reading this kind of unnecessary rubbish.

This is a thread that could do with the enlightening explanations of someone who has expertise with building processes, inspection regimes, industry 'best practice', &c. - such as the kind of posts that @villa4europe has taken the time to post above.

It's a shame that you don't want to help all of us who don't know about the details of these things.

Edited June 27, 2017 by snowychap

[snowychap]

7 hours ago, villa4europe said:

ultimately IMO its the architect's PI that would be paying out, they specified the product, the client, the contractor, the subbie, even probably building control might not have the knowledge. certainly not the knowledge that you'd expect the architect to have, my project the architect specifies alucobond, we know the product, we know the approved installers, we know how long it'll take to get and where it'll come from, how to install it safely and using what equipment, our expertise and role in the project isnt really to go over the finer details of the product and say if its suitable, thats the architect

boxing around the pipes is different though, it probably wont have a detail drawing but should have a spec still, that works will more than likely come under builders work which is more of a grey area which is made up as you go along, if there was boxing of other pipes on site (soilent vent pipes etc) it would be acceptable to do it in ply (although you'd usually do it in MDF)

when we did some gas pipe work on the high rise in sandwell it was definitely fire liner board with then fire sealant gobbing up all the holes in the slab as it went through the floors

the ply used to box the gas pipe would IMO drag the contractor in to the blame, even if the architect had specified ply then they would know its not good building practice, it would more than likely have been done by a carpenter on site, building control should have spotted it too

like id said way back at the start of this thread though, the fireliner board and the fire batt gobbing up the riser etc that should have been there will only be designed to give an hours protection, after that the liner will burn

ive seen fire officers on site maybe 3 times, its usually for timber frame buildings that are in close proximity to other buildings and even then its a ball ache to get them there, they dont have time or arent interested 

 

Thanks again for taking the time to post all of this.

Reading back through this and the previous post, am I getting it wrong when I infer from what you've said about ' who did those things you ask? everyone ' that it is, in effect, a process mainly of self-monitoring and self-regulation of whether the people in the building process follow the instructions as laid down by the architect and other things generally viewed as 'good building practice'?

Edited June 27, 2017 by snowychap

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

44 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That's not how it works.  You don't just get to make a pronouncement that doesn't make sense and then say the above.

7 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Sadly for you, it is. You have asked pretty much nothing from me that will inform the debate.

You'll have to point out things I have said relative to construction which make no sense.....as I said before, you don't do that. You simply do opposition! Which brings us nicely again to your parting and failed point.

44 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's a shame that you don't want to help all of us who don't know about these things and that all you want to do is repeat already rebutted slights.

I'll help everyone which is why I haven't withdrawn from the conversation...whereas twice you have said you are done with talking to me despite me actually having in-depth knowledge I have been sharing for quite some time....about lots of things not just construction. It's a shame for sure....but not my shame.

Your only POV when replying to me is opposition, with no compromise on your one sided approach. You can''t even accept that my blame perspective holds any weight and when you do throw accusations you direct it at two figures that are easy to hate. You even questioned, not asked about, the Mayoral powers! 

It's frustrating but if I can cope with 14 hour days for three years to save the Aston Arena, I can cope with the occasional flurry of facts directed at your entrenched opinion....I know others have benefited from my knowledge as I have benefit from theirs! 

Edited June 27, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Sadly for you, it is.

No, it isn't. It really isn't.

No matter how much you may believe it or keep telling yourself that it is so: it doesn't work by you saying that it's your 'realm' and that we all have to take your word for it.

Edited June 27, 2017 by snowychap