Conservative Council (Grenfall Tower Fire) has £274m of reserves!

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Perhaps some of the more expert people on here can tell us if the 'thermal resistance' mentioned in the tech spec for Raynobond is very, er, resistant.
https://www.arconic.com/aap/north_america/catalog/pdf/specifications/ReynobondEngProperties.pdf

Thermal resistance measures the insulation properties of the material stopping wanted heat from escaping - like double glazing or roof insulation.

The cladding is made up from a number of components with three levels of fire testing:

1) ASTM E84 test: Combustion testing of the individual bulk materials in isolation. This will show how long it takes for a given material (expanded foam filling, outer layer, aluminium etc.) to ignite and then the rate of conflagration as well as smoke production etc.

2) ASTM D635: Vertical combustion test of the composite cladding in an isolated configuration.

3) NFPA 285: System fire test of the complete cladding installation to include fixings, building, anchor points, ventilation, fire breaks etc.

This is critical: The Fire Retardant FR cladding is tested in a fully installed configuration. It is not clear whether the core material as referred to in the specification is actually the same material in both FR and PE core types but rendered "Fire Resistant" when installed with fire breaks to prevent the propagation of flame.

We cannot speculate which version was used. But like military grade components, there may be no difference in production or materials other than the level of testing for any given component which is then graded as commercial, industrial or military dependent on the severity of the tests passed.

As I stated a while ago in a different thread, the critical test is the NFPA 285 systems test which defines the overall performance in any given application.

One possibility would be that each and every building using the cladding be rigorously surveyed and the NFPA 285 test executed in the exact installation configuration of the building. Those passing the evaluation can be deemed safe subject to other requirements like fire suppression sprinkler systems.

Those failing must have the cladding ripped down and replaced with a fully tested compliant version.

This is only one part of a potential solution though. The public enquiry must look at the whole construction of high rise buildings with a review of single stairwell access, fire suppression, smoke suppression, periodic maintenance (may be weekly fire drills etc.) and certification, accountability and even the part residents play in placing themselves and others at risk through sub-letting, overcrowding etc.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 82

RogerOxon

Original post by uberteknik

Thermal resistance measures the insulation properties of the material stopping wanted heat from escaping - like double glazing or roof insulation.

At the cladding thicknesses listed (up to 6mm), the thermal insulation properties are negligible. It looks very much like the cladding is to protect the underlying material and to look pretty,

It is not clear whether the core material as referred to in the specification is actually the same material in both FR and PE core types but rendered "Fire Resistant" when installed with fire breaks to prevent the propagation of flame.

As they refer to different core types, I would expect that the core materials are different.

How it was fixed to the building may also have played a role, e.g. the type of adhesive / fixings and any air gaps behind the cladding.

Reply 83

999tigger

Original post by Fullofsurprises

It's Tory misinformation, they are planting these stories deliberately to distract attention from the failures of their policies and their council and the austerity programme. There is no truth in it.

You see this is where I lose faith in you.

You are too busy frothing rather than willing to look at the evidence as presented.

Your post in nonsensical in relation to the issue in question. How depressing.

I will wait to see what evidence is presented and what the legal situation is on this to decide what legal obligations were placed on whom and who broke what.

Reply 84

uberteknik

Original post by RogerOxon

As they refer to different core types, I would expect that the core materials are different.

How it was fixed to the building may also have played a role, e.g. the type of adhesive / fixings and any air gaps behind the cladding.

Which is why I referred to NFPA 2895 test as critical.

The fire-safety and buildings regulations enquiries will no doubt focus on these areas. Even if the FR cladding was used at Grenfell, performance can be compromised if not installed in compliance with the manufacturers specification.

Reply 85

999tigger

Original post by Good bloke

I believe you are correct -foam inside an aluminium cover. There is something wrong with the testing system if that material was approved as of limited combustibility, as can be seen in the video footage.

The other troubling aspect is that a material that gives off poisonous fumes when set alight should be allowed in insulation of large buildings.

Those people blaming politicians are barking up the wrong tree. The regulations look sound from where I am sitting. The technical experts appear to have approved materials and structures that are not fit for purpose.

The cladding was not meant to be used for buildings over 10m. had it been used on a 10m building then they would have put it out.

I agree with you the sheer flammability of the cladding seems insane even for a 10m building.

There are two types of the cladding and its the internal component that can be made of plastic (Grenfell cladding) and flame resistant,/ metal/ mineral based (more expensive ). the suggestion is cost cutting to save £5,000.

If people have really done things like this when they are on six figure salaries, then I hope and expect them to be held accountable. If a custodial sentence is an option then I do hope they are jailed.

Reply 86

Original post by 999tigger

You see this is where I lose faith in you.

You are too busy frothing rather than willing to look at the evidence as presented.

Your post in nonsensical in relation to the issue in question. How depressing.

I will wait to see what evidence is presented and what the legal situation is on this to decide what legal obligations were placed on whom and who broke what.

I think the facts are with me.

1/ Philip Hammond claimed the use of the material was illegal in the UK.

2/ That is false.

Where did I go wrong?

Reply 87

Original post by 999tigger

If people have really done things like this when they are on six figure salaries, then I hope and expect them to be held accountable. If a custodial sentence is an option then I do hope they are jailed.

Agreed, but the contractor will have been bidding to a budget and it is up to the buyer to stipulate precisely what is acceptable. At the same time, the council has an overall responsibility (which it devolves to the tenant's company but does not absolve itself of) to ensure that solutions on public housing are safe. So the chain of culpability in all probability goes higher than just the contractor, although given the rush of government spokespeople to claim it doesn't, it would appear that they will be made the sacrifice. Then we have the fact that the documents relating to all this at council and government level are not protected until the enquiry officially commences, giving all concerned plenty of time to run the shredders on maximum.

Reply 88

Original post by Fullofsurprises

1/ Philip Hammond claimed the use of the material was illegal in the UK.

You have not even taken care to read properly what he said. He said:

My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.

So there are two separate questions. One: are our regulations correct, do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? The second question is: were they correctly complied with?

That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.

He is the chancellor, not an expert, and he is discussing the issue as any layman would, and openly hoping a very sensible thing, that the enquiry will get to the bottom of what went wrong. He made no statement as to the legality of the cladding; he prefaced his remarks with a caveat that he understood it was illegal (with a clear implication he accepted he might turn out to be wrong) and his views on the enquiry were based on that assumption. He was talking about the enquiry and its purpose, not the cladding or assigning blame.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 89

nulli tertius

Original post by 999tigger

The cladding was not meant to be used for buildings over 10m. had it been used on a 10m building then they would have put it out.

I agree with you the sheer flammability of the cladding seems insane even for a 10m building.

There are two types of the cladding and its the internal component that can be made of plastic (Grenfell cladding) and flame resistant,/ metal/ mineral based (more expensive ). the suggestion is cost cutting to save £5,000.

If people have really done things like this when they are on six figure salaries, then I hope and expect them to be held accountable. If a custodial sentence is an option then I do hope they are jailed.

This isn't quite right.

If you look at the links to the Celotex website above, it says:-

"Celotex RS5000 meets the performance criteria in BR 135 and therefore is suitable for buildings above 18m"

"Suitable for use in warm steel frame constructions for ventilated facade applications, Celotex RS5000 can be used in buildings above 18 metres in height – a first for PIR insulation."

I think, and I think Good Bloke agrees with me, that the Reynobond PE insulation is an integral part of the Celotex product. If that is right, then you either buy Celotex with the PE product or you buy something completely different. There is no product that is Celotex with the FR insulation.

The makers of Celotex are undoubtedly claiming that their product is suitable.

Reply 90

Original post by nulli tertius

The makers of Celotex are undoubtedly claiming that their product is suitable.

Which is why I question the testing regime.

Reply 91

Trapz99

Absolutely disgusting how this event is being used to attack the government. It's a tragedy, let's wait for the inquiry to end before speculating.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 92

Original post by Good bloke

You have not even taken care to read properly what he said. He said:

My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.

So there are two separate questions. One: are our regulations correct, do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? The second question is: were they correctly complied with?

That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.

He is the chancellor, not an expert, and he is discussing the issue as any layman would, and openly hoping a very sensible thing, that the enquiry will get to the bottom of what went wrong. He made no statement as to the legality of the cladding; he prefaced his remarks with a caveat that he understood it was illegal (with a clear implication he accepted he might turn out to be wrong) and his views on the enquiry were based on that assumption. He was talking about the enquiry and its purpose, not the cladding or assigning blame.

Ah, here we go - it's all about the nuances, eh?

First of all, even if he used the word 'banned', that's still completely untrue, as numerous experts have stated online and in the media.

Secondly, he clearly intended to give the false impression that all the blame therefore lay with the contractors.

He wasn't the only leading Tory that day saying the same things, so your highly refined argument that he was speaking technically about the enquiry may convince you, but I think most reasonable people will see it for the completely cynical politicking and spin and news management that it was.

Then we could go on to sprinklers being legal requirements in Scotland and Wales for these buildings, but not here and why - because the Tories blocked that legislation here.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 93

Original post by Good bloke

You have not even taken care to read properly what he said. He said:

My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.

So there are two separate questions. One: are our regulations correct, do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? The second question is: were they correctly complied with?

That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.

He is the chancellor, not an expert, and he is discussing the issue as any layman would, and openly hoping a very sensible thing, that the enquiry will get to the bottom of what went wrong. He made no statement as to the legality of the cladding; he prefaced his remarks with a caveat that he understood it was illegal (with a clear implication he accepted he might turn out to be wrong) and his views on the enquiry were based on that assumption. He was talking about the enquiry and its purpose, not the cladding or assigning blame.

Ah, here we go - it's all about the nuances, eh?

First of all, even if he used the word 'banned', that's still completely untrue, as numerous experts have stated online and in the media.

Secondly, he clearly intended to give the false impression that all the blame therefore lay with the contractors.

He wasn't the only leading Tory that day saying the same things, so your highly refined argument that he was speaking technically about the enquiry may convince you, but I think most reasonable people will see it for the completely cynical politicking and spin and news management that it was.

Then we could go on to sprinklers being legal requirements in Scotland and Wales for these buildings, but not here and why - because the Tories blocked that legislation here.

Reply 94

Original post by Trapz99

Absolutely disgusting how this event is being used to attack the gvonerment. It's a tragedy, let's wait for the inquiry to end before speculating.

Not only that, we will almost certainly find that LAs and government ministers of all parties will have been in power in areas where similar cladding has been used. There was a LIbdem government minister in charge at one point, and the Labour government introduced relevant legislation on 2005/6, quite apart from Scotland, Ulster and Wales.

This is not a political issue, though you wouldn't believe it from the ridiculous emotional and bilious attacks here.

Reply 95

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Then we could go on to sprinklers being legal requirements in Scotland

We could but we would be letting bile come before facts as it is not true.

Sprinklers are compulsory in Scotland only for new building of this type. The same building in Scotland could well have been left without sprinklers. There are probably plenty of such buildings in a similar condition in Scotland.

http://www.bafsa.org.uk/sprinkler-information/legislation.php

Reply 96

uberteknik

Original post by Good bloke

Not only that, we will almost certainly find that LAs and government ministers of all parties will have been in power in areas where similar cladding has been used. There was a LIbdem government minister in charge at one point, and the Labour government introduced relevant legislation on 2005/6, quite apart from Scotland, Ulster and Wales.

This is not a political issue, though you wouldn't believe it from the ridiculous emotional and bilious attacks here.

Unfortunately Fullofsurprises does not appear interested in facts or the truth. She has an agenda to push.

She is entitled to her opinion of course.

But conspiracy does seem to significantly outweigh logic, rationality and sensibility.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 97

999tigger