Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 22:17:21 GMT
Just watching Newsnight and listening to the discussion about the cladding.
I am astonished they were using a cladding product that has some (however small) ability to sustain fire. As a commercial property owner and manager, all the commercial buildings we look after, and which are clad that were built or refurbished in the last 20 years use (and insurers insist upon) Kingspan products which have no ability to sustain fire at all. Therefore the fire could not have raced up the tower had they used the right product.
I remember buying a fairly new building in Paisley in about 2002 and built in 2000. My insurance company needed details of the construction and were very particular about the cladding panels. As soon as the word Kingspan was mentioned they just relaxed.
What a disaster and I sure heads will roll. In the meantime RIP to dead and get well soon to the survivors.
|
|
Avant
Full Member
Posts: 691
|
Post by Avant on Jun 14, 2017 23:49:59 GMT
Good to hear your professional view on this, Espada - many thanks. Is there something else badly wrong with this block? - in that even if the external cladding allowed the fire to climb up the building, aren't the individual flats supposed to contain fires within themselves? (I hope that question makes sense!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 4:45:53 GMT
The block was not designed to prevent fire entering from the outside, only to prevent fire spreading internally. Once it gained hold vertically, the windows would have failed, curtains and frames caught fire and smoke probably done the worst damage in terms of loss of life.
PS. I have some insight because of 25+ years experience in surveying but I am an expert in this sort of stuff as an brain surgeon is in podiatry.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Post by WDB on Jun 15, 2017 6:11:57 GMT
Just been listening to this man on Today: According to his profile, he lives in Ash. Despite the misfortune of being interviewed on a technical matter by Sarah Montague, he got his concerns across well about cladding materials, single staircases and experiences in other countries. His point about stairs was a shock. The 13-storey hotel I stayed in in Santiago had only one staircase (in the centre of the tower) and I remember thinking at the time that such a design wouldn't be acceptable in the UK. Apparent I was wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by Hofmeister on Jun 15, 2017 8:58:42 GMT
Fires in high rise blocks are much more common than you think. The blocks are built and designed to contain fires at the source. IE the assumption is a fire will start inside an apartment, and there it must remain. Fire doors, (self closing) stopped and sealed ducting and services, non flammable materials in corridors, The stairwells are not only escape points but in the event of fire they act as chimneys increasing the draft spread and temperature of the fire, but are also required to vent gasses (in a controlled manner) to prevent high temperature flash over. They mostly have it right most of the time, and the advice to stay in your apartment is good.
Except.
The new cladding on the outside, Updrafts up the side of the building, aluminium skin (it burns and burns hot once you get it going, and you cant put the bugger out) plastic inside (it burns) and suddenly you have a roman candle.
and then
I bet the new window frames were plastic............. And we are where we are.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Post by WDB on Jun 15, 2017 11:18:09 GMT
The filling under the aluminium was polyethylene, according to Mr Timpson. Chosen for its thermal insulation, apparently, but not the greatest fire retardant.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
|
Post by Rob on Jun 15, 2017 17:11:01 GMT
I am a little shocked anything that could burn was used on the outside. How was that allowed? Why would you have designed a block of flats in 2017 let alone 1974 to resist fire from outside.... there was nothing outside that could burn originally.
I know of someone (a relative) that works in the insulation industry. They specialise in Rockwool. Wouldn't that have been a better product for the insulation element of the cladding?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 18:15:33 GMT
Most likely polyurethane not polyethylene. But PU will burn as well unless used with fire suppressants.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,354
|
Post by WDB on Jun 16, 2017 7:36:12 GMT
Cladding panels seem to have been this stuff: www.arconic.com/aap/europe/en/product_category.asp?cat_id=1843Suggestion on Today that these cost £5,000 less - for the entire building - than the non-combustible alternative. Interesting that the maker's page shows it on a sports stadium - in Qatar - rather than a residential block, and mentions that they also make a fire safe product. While I'm wary of the tendency for us all to become instant experts after an event like this, it does sound like the manufacturer made a product suitable for this application but the contractor chose a cheaper one not intended for the purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jun 16, 2017 8:50:26 GMT
Fuxake.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jun 21, 2017 14:07:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 16:56:32 GMT
Yes. Half way there. I wonder if some people will take the opportunity to change their lives and move elsewhere.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
|
Post by Rob on Jun 21, 2017 19:39:46 GMT
A good start. The cynic in me still thinks the London corporation doing the deal has looked at their long term investment. Those flats at some point (immediately?) will be worth a lot more than they pay. And no doubt the developer is writing off debt against the losses.
But it's good that some of those displaced will soon have somewhere nice to live. Let's hope the other half get something equally as good.
|
|