Forum menu
Deadly pink batts?
You should have seen the size of them 😆
slowster
The question of sprinklers is a red herring.
Let me utter two words that the vast majority of people, and especially any residents of the Tower will find difficult:
STATISTICS and PROBABILITY
There i've said it.
Here's the real Truth, the real FACT: Events like large Tower Block fires occur so infrequently that they need to be analysed using statistical theory. You CANNOT just say "oh if sprinklers were fitted it wouldn't happened" In order to make any such claim, because of the one-off nature of these things, that claim will need to be STATISTICALLY VALID. Unfortunately (especially if you are the one being burned to death) getting a valid answer takes time, effort, and some people who actually have taken the time to fully analyse the scenario.
Imagine a game of Russian Roulette. One live round in a six shot revolver. On AVERAGE, on the first pull of the trigger you have just a 1/6 chance of being killed, but you might be killed on that first pull. The second pull (1/5) but again, you might be killed as soon as you pull. And so on.
What you CAN'T do is take any individual events probability (or actuality) and apply it as a mean case across everything.
The issue we face, and it's the reason for Knee Jerk reactions we see so often, is that us humans are not logical or statistical. We have a very poor grasp of probability (for example, people complained when the "random" track play feature on their media player repeated a track, failing to understand that true randomness does allow repetitive events), and when tensions and emotions are high, its far, far more satisfying to grab a pitch fork, run out side and join the mob, than it is to sit down with a calculator and actually work out what will make a REAL difference.
So, would have sprinklers made a difference in this case: Possibly.
(And had they prevented it, it still would have been incorrect to state "Sprinklers prevent ALL fires" etc)
Apparently that cladding is banned in the UK on buildings over 18m high.
[url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html ]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html[/url]
maxtorque - Member
...its far, far more satisfying to grab a pitch fork, run out side and join the mob, than it is to sit down with a calculator and actually work out what will make a REAL difference....
You are of course right about the facts and probabilities etc.
Unfortunately the politicians don't really care about that, and only get perturbed when people do rush around with their pitchforks.
So I say let's tar and feather the lot. 🙂
Slackman99 +1
The overcladding proposal for Grenfell Tower is in the BREEAM assessment for those who know what they are looking at and where to find it. Insulation specified is a FR PIR insulation board by a well known manufacturer. This is the design intent. The placement of the aluminium windows is also shown relative to the overcladding.
The fire load issue with the ACM panel (or ZCM) is an unknown. The 3 to 4mm PE core will melt under fire conditions. I'm unsure how its burns but as noted by Slowster the quantity of material is minimal. Its also encapsulated by the aluminium or zinc facings. However the PE will drip and this can cause secondary fires if it lands unfavourable. The integrity of the panel is also effected. But note that the facings have low melting points.
The composite panels mentioned in some reports are a different item. The industry is well aware of the issues particularly after the Sahib Food fire.
a government minister has today stated that the panels may not be the ones that are fire safety tested.
Maxtorque both me and another forum member work or worked in flour mills. These are without exception fitted with sprinklers you would have great difficulty getting insurance for a mill without them fitted. I suspect that for [b]internal[/b] fires they are the best solution along with some strict passive fire safety design.
It would also appear that the preferred bidder for the refurb was dropped because the winning bid was £1.6 million cheaper. I wonder if there was a hitching post outside the site Office for all the cowboys horses!
Flour mills (and similar industries) have the issue of "dust explosions" and sprinklers combat that risk (by washing the fine dust out the atmosphere) so i'm not surprised they must be fitted.
I think there is little doubt they would have provided some mitgation in the original small fire, but until the investigation is complete, we won't know if they could have prevented that fire spreading to the outside of the building and the cladding etc. I'm sure there will be plenty of analysis and small scale thermal tests done to establish what actually occurred and the most robust engineering solution.
maxtorque - MemberFlour mills (and similar industries) have the issue of "dust explosions" and sprinklers combat that risk (by washing the fine dust out the atmosphere) so i'm not surprised they must be fitted.
I guess I'm the other person who is still in the flour milling game? And as he said they are great for internal fires.
But if you have a dust explosion any sprinkler system is useless & unless you are talking about some old style museum flour mill I have no idea what you are talking of "fine dust in the atmosphere" any fine dust is flour and that's what we sell so systems are designed to be under slight negative pressure to keep the flour in its intended location.
Trust me after 15 years of DSEAR studies & lots of money spent on combating the findings sprinklers are not the solution.
But if your talking propagation of fires with large amounts of combustible material pallets & paper sacks then sprinklers are great.
My grandad once blew up a Mcvities bakery 😆 Don't ****, with flour, cos flour, will ****ing kill you
Indeed. It's been suggested that Guy Fawkes might just have got away with his plot if he'd found a way to use flour instead of gunpowder
[url=
Imatating Art[/url]
Don't *, with flour, cos flour, will *ing kill you
I remember seeing an explosion using custard powder, it was pretty impressive.
A little good news.
And that is also why the conspiracy crap of the D class order and they are not being honest about the deaths is pretty harmful.
Using sugar is where it's at chaps. Most bang for mass used. I have had personal experience of fire in a mill it's a little exciting! The sprinkler head dealt with it. Strangely the stock in the roll hopper did not catch and this was a little understood phenomenon when I last ground wheat in anger. The milling research people had been unable to get an explosion in a hopper to happen and couldn't explain why as conditions would appear to be perfect for it. And it's the second bang that's the big one!
Absolutely incredible. 4th floor flat.. victims 70+.. Government floundering.. and they say you couldn't? make it up. 😯
Life imitating art indeed
A speaker on the Al-Quds march this weekend (the one where Hezbollah flags complete with AK47s are allowed) said the Zionsts where responsible for fhe Grenfell tower block Fire. So there we have it, it was the Jews who dunnit.
I won't post the link
I won't post the link
Indeed, it's not as if you've ever used evidence to back up your claims previously, so why start now?
you're a bawhum of a man. **** off.jambalaya - Member
A speaker on the Al-Quds march this weekend (the one where Hezbollah flags complete with AK47s are allowed) said the Zionsts where responsible for fhe Grenfell tower block Fire. So there we have it, it was the Jews who dunnit.I won't post the link
As I said previously, increasingly deranged since election night.
150
😆
tbh, his game is quite obvious, it's his usually trolling, so that he can get people to abuse him, which then allows him to press the report button and get people banned.
It's a strange way to get yer kicks, particularly on a subject like this. each to their own i guess...
That panorama was an odd piece of journilism, he was out straight away knowing that was a huge tragedy before anyone else had reacted. Must be difficult doing your job when your heart is probably telling you to muck in with the help effort.
That poor soul flashing the torch at the top, just completely helpless. 🙁
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40362317
Only resigned when 'requested to do so'; was he part of the volunteer effort? What about Padget-Brown?
Shower of shit.
3mm or 4mm of expanded PE foam,
Solid PE is used for the core, not expanded foam
Apparently that cladding is banned in the UK on buildings over 18m high.
I'd be interested to see what document bans it. Doc B mentions insulation and filler materials, so it may come down to interpretation of whether the cladding panels themselves count as either of these items. Some in the industry would argue that they don't, however BCA and CWCT guidelines recommend against its use
@pjm84 -
Its also encapsulated by the aluminium or zinc facings.
Except at the edges of the panel where the core is fully exposed
Solid PE is used for the core, not expanded foam
Thank you, that explains a lot. I could not understand how the cladding contributed so much to that fire if it was such a thin foam.
With regard to the encapsulation between inner and outer metal sheets, if the two sheets were separate and only bonded together by the polyethylene, then I suspect that the outer sheets delaminated, exposing the whole surface area of one side of the plastic to air/oxygen and to the fire. This particular hazard has been known about for polystyrene composite panels for 25+ years, and even if ACM is much more recent, it would have been clear to manufacturers, specifiers and fire safety professionals involved with ACM that they presented the same risk following the Dubai Hotel fire in 2015. The manufacturers of Reynobond PE themselves state it should not used on buildings above 10m.
I'd be interested to see what document bans it. Doc B mentions insulation and filler materials, so it may come down to interpretation of whether the cladding panels themselves count as either of these items. Some in the industry would argue that they don't, however BCA and CWCT guidelines recommend against its use
It does look likely that the argument that the polyethylene was not insulation or filler will be used when this finally comes to court, so it might be argued that they have not breached paragraph 12.7.
It looks horribly possible, even likely, that someone involved in the specification for Grenfell Tower concluded that the polyethylene cladding [i]would[/i] comply with ADB, either because they were not very experienced and did not have a good understanding of ADB, or worse, because they [i]were[/i] experienced/'clever' and saw a potential 'loophole' in ADB. EDIT - And seemingly others, including Building Control, either accepted this without questioning it, or worse they did not notice it.
If this were all that needed to be addressed in the proposed review of ADB, it would be fairly simple, but there are other areas where similar risks and problems likely now exist and will occur more and more with modern methods of construction making extensive use of combustible materials, so the review will need to be far more comprehensive than just considering cladding and tower blocks.
you're a bawhum of a man
😆 😆 😆
Downing Street have just announced that there are at least 600 hi-rise buildings in the UK with the same cladding on them.
Jeez.
Downing Street have just announced that there are at least 600 hi-rise buildings in the UK with the same cladding on them.Jeez.
tm-pm has anounced that private blocks are going to be also checked out, with the government paying the bill, there will be a lot of paper shredding and toilet roll used in next few months by those responsible, and who knew of the risks and still went ahead, and one of the firms responsible has had 2 cladding jobs put on hold, not good for the tradesmen installing the stuff as they need to be paid.
Probably quite a few companies going to go bust to either avoid the liabilities, or just cant afford to pay workers as contracts are put on hold.
with the government paying the bill,
She refused to be nailed down on whether councils would get extra money for this funding
she was also very weasely about whether the lakanal house coroners report recommended that sprinklers should be installed in all blocks
MrOvershoot - Member
maxtorque - Member
Flour mills (and similar industries) have the issue of "dust explosions" and sprinklers combat that risk (by washing the fine dust out the atmosphere) so i'm not surprised they must be fitted.
I guess I'm the other person who is still in the flour milling game? And as he said they are great for internal fires.
Large fire at a mil today in Crewe, 6 fire engines and 3 floors involved
http://www.cheshirefire.gov.uk/news-events/incidents/ongoing-large-industrial-fire-in-crewe
Latest Clickbait on FB relating to this headlines with "survivors to be house somewhere "up north" or face losing benefits for becoming voluntarily homeless" . . . .
wwaswas - Member
Downing Street have just announced that there are at least 600 hi-rise buildings in the UK with the same cladding on them.Jeez.
aye was just reading that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646
aye was just reading that.
apparently that was a mistake by No.10 press office that May repeated
they meant 600 tower blocks with cladding of some kind
only 3 so far have been found to have the dodgy stuff, not sure how many have been tested
But for a brief moment I bet that a lot of tower block residents that saw the 600 figure were even more worried!
cheers.
its still up on the News webpages though, BBC, telegrapgh- has a particularly alarming front page!
just when you thought the gov might be getting their act together on this, they are now spreading fake news!
Yep - very very irresponsible to release this incorrect info.
600 sounded like every clad high-rise in the country!
From that BBC link:
Councils were told to give details to the government about the cladding they used in the tower blocks by Monday.The Department for Communities and Local Government is then co-ordinating tests on it - [u]with up to 100 able to take place in a day.[/u]
100 a day sounds like they are only doing some kind of 'quick and dirty' testing, maybe just a small scale surface spread of flame test.
For those tower blocks with the same type of combustible cladding as Grenfell Tower, of which some have already been identified in Camden and Tottenham according to the BBC article, the local authority is going to need to undertake an immediate revised Fire Risk Assessment. I find it difficult to imagine how a new assessment will be able to conclude other than that the fire safety of the flats is not acceptable. Given that it will take months to remove/replace the cladding, that will necessitate immediate rehousing of the tenants, so again we could be looking at people being put up in hotels for months. They might be able to say that only tenants in floors above 18m need be evacuated, since that is the maximum height up to which this cladding would be permitted by Building Regs, but I cannot imagine tenants on the remaining floors being happy to accept that.
A stop-gap might be too see if the blocks have rooftop water tanks that are big enough to be used for a curtain type deluge system down the outside of the block, but I suspect any retrofit/upgrade to do that will be prohibitively expensive compared to rehoming the occupants and refitting the cladding.
Could you not rehouns the tenants until the cladding has been removed only, as once it's gone the fire risk is removed, unless the removal of it will open up their homes to the elements, in which case, it was never really just 'cladding' was it?
A stop-gap might be too see if the blocks have rooftop water tanks that are big enough to be used for a curtain type deluge system down the outside of the block, but I suspect any retrofit/upgrade to do that will be prohibitively expensive compared to rehoming the occupants and refitting the cladding.
There are two problems with external drenchers:
1. The amounts of water they require are huge. A sprinkler system inside flats will only need a small tank and a small pump because it will be designed to control a fire contained within only a few rooms at most involving a relatively small quantity of combustible material with only a few sprinkler heads operating. A drencher system needs to deliver something like 10mm/min of water to every square metre of wall protected. That's 10 litres [i]every[/i] minute for [i]every[/i] square metre, and since you can't expect the drenchers to extinguish the fire, only to control it and limit its spread, you need a water supply that will provide that for a significant duration. Even if such a system were installed with zones to limit which drencher heads released water, it would still be impractical and cost prohibitive.
2. Drenchers will not control a fire if it is occurring inside panels, like the ACM panels. It might have an effect when the outer sheet delaminates and allows water to reach the burning polyethylene, and similarly when the inner sheet comes away that will allow water to reach the PIR boards behind (if they were contributing to the fire significantly given that they were fire resistant), but another possible problem is that the polyethylene reportedly drips burning droplets when alight, so falling sheets and molten droplets might fall onto the drencher heads (you would need them part way up the building, not just at the roof) and interfere with their ability to spray water.
Could you not rehouns the tenants until the cladding has been removed only, as once it's gone the fire risk is removed
On the face of it, I think that is what they are likely to have to do.
Even if such a system were installed with zones to limit which drencher heads released water, it would still be impractical and cost prohibitive.
That's what I was thinking, I'm in the process safety side, we use them on oil tanks, but they're a touch smaller.
They may keep the residents in the building but change the protocol in the event of a fire from 'stay put' to 'immediate egress' if the stairwells have been sized correctly to handle the footfall.
I'm in the process safety side, we use them on oil tanks
Sounds like interesting work.
They may keep the residents in the building but change the protocol in the event of a fire from 'stay put' to 'immediate egress' if the stairwells have been sized correctly to handle the footfall.
The problem with that is if the flats are like Grenfell Tower with only a single exit route. If the Fire Risk Assessment concludes that 'stay put' is not viable, then two exit routes (stairwells) are needed, since you have to consider the possibilities that:
- fire starts in the stairwell (e.g. contractors leave materials there or someone discards an old sofa in the stairwell), or
- fire starts in a flat but spreads and breaks through fire resisting doors into the stairwell, or
- the stairwell becomes smoke logged from a fire.
The letter the failed governmnent has sent out to landlords and property managers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40375200
just where are all the skilled workers and trained staff going to come from to do this, and where are all the residents going to be rehomed/live, some old and infirm some with kids and some who just want move out, then theres pets, internet access, food and drink,postal services and lots more to sort out.
Maybe for tower blocks that have these types of cladding they update the stay put policy to include marginally or not opening the windows and maybe putting wet towels behind doors where smoke is coming in.
I am assuming with Greenfell due to hot weather, most had the windows open, which when the cladding did or didn't do something, these open windows let the fire in meaning the stay put policy didn't work.