How many tower blocks will be condemned?

[kzb]

1 minute ago, billybong said:

That raises a question - was the assessing and drafting of the regulations or some aspects of it privatised?  

Everything else seems to have been privatised and it was revealed recently that includes the assessing of and the signing off of materials and works which originally used to be a function under local authority building control.

Yes but some poor sod of a laboratory technician has signed off something as a PASS, when retesting same items now is showing 100% failure rate. 

Has the test changed?

[billybong]

15 minutes ago, kzb said:

Yes but some poor sod of a laboratory technician has signed off something as a PASS, when retesting same items now is showing 100% failure rate. 

Has the test changed?

What tests did they actually do originally.  BRE has had large scale fire testing facilities for a long time now.  Did they do the testing?  I assume some testing was done at some stage.

As for the lab technician likely he/she's long gone and is off to a few other 16 hour a week gigs.  Just doing what they're told.

Edited June 26, 2017 by billybong

[Riedquat]

25 minutes ago, kzb said:

Yes but some poor sod of a laboratory technician has signed off something as a PASS, when retesting same items now is showing 100% failure rate. 

Has the test changed?

It's still not clear what is being tested right now - is it the material being used turning out to not be the material that was thought to be used?

The lab tech will probably have done exactly what he was supposed to have done, tested samples against a set of specifications. It's unlikely that that's changed. AFAIK there's been no accusation that a particular material is more flammable than it was believed to be, it's all whether the material used was the one specified, or whether the regulations allowed materials to be used that shouldn't have been, or to be fitted in a way that they shouldn't have been.

[kzb]

14 minutes ago, billybong said:

What tests did they actually do originally.  BRE has had large scale fire testing facilities for a long time now.  Did they do the testing?  I assume some testing was done at some stage.

As for the lab technician likely he/she's long gone and is off to a few other 16 hour a week gigs.  Just doing what they're told.

Like everything there are hidden depths.

When the media refer to "the fire tests", what does that actually mean?

In addition, was it actually a legal requirement for the cladding to pass "the fire tests", whatever they were?

BS 8414-1 Fire Performance of External Cladding Systems is a highly prescriptive test.  The test item is constructed in a rig intended to replicate the real world.  Clearly, a purpose built facility is needed to perform the test.   Even the "crib" is prescribed, the species of tree from which the wood is derived and how it is arranged in the crib is all laid down in detail.

[ChumpusRex]

17 minutes ago, kzb said:

Yes but some poor sod of a laboratory technician has signed off something as a PASS, when retesting same items now is showing 100% failure rate. 

Has the test changed?

I wouldn't have expected the test to change. The historical test has been BS476, which has been around since the 80s with some minor revisions, and is based on small scale samples. 

It sounds like this is probably the testing which is being repeated, as I wouldn't expect dozens of large scale tests to have been done in just a few days.

There are potentially innocent explanations, e.g. an unintentional change in production, due to a change in quality of materials in the supply chain, as well as less innocent explanations as to why the tests should now be failing.

 

 

[kzb]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

It's still not clear what is being tested right now - is it the material being used turning out to not be the material that was thought to be used?

The lab tech will probably have done exactly what he was supposed to have done, tested samples against a set of specifications. It's unlikely that that's changed. AFAIK there's been no accusation that a particular material is more flammable than it was believed to be, it's all whether the material used was the one specified, or whether the regulations allowed materials to be used that shouldn't have been, or to be fitted in a way that they shouldn't have been.

Well yes I agree with most of  this.  It's not necessarily the lab that is at fault.  We do not know if the cladding actually fitted was the same as that tested.   But the cladding is now "failing" with 100% rate.  So it's not how it was fitted.

[Riedquat]

My assumption (which is all it is, I'd like to know the actual answer) is that the testing being done now and is failing isn't "look how flammable this stuff is" but "this isn't the stuff we thought was there."

[Bruce Banner]

56 minutes ago, kzb said:

Yes but some poor sod of a laboratory technician has signed off something as a PASS, when retesting same items now is showing 100% failure rate. 

Has the test changed?

With words like manslaughter and even murder being bandied around, nobody is going to stick their neck out unless the building has built-in, fully manned, 24 hour, fire station.

[kzb]

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

My assumption (which is all it is, I'd like to know the actual answer) is that the testing being done now and is failing isn't "look how flammable this stuff is" but "this isn't the stuff we thought was there."

Yes I'd agree with this.  It seems very unlikely to me that UK professional staff would certify something as passing a certain specification when it has not.  This applies whether or not the testing facility is privatised.

So are we left with two possibilities? 

1. Contractors knowingly fitted cladding which was not tested to the required specification?
2. Contractors, unknown to them, were supplied with Fake Goods?

This presupposes that the testing, which is now being failed at 100%, is the same specification as was required when the cladding was fitted.

I don't think (2) is a defence -they are supposed to rigorously evaluate their suppliers

 

[kzb]

17 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

With words like manslaughter and even murder being bandied around, nobody is going to stick their neck out unless the building has built-in, fully manned, 24 hour, fire station.

I'm not clear what you mean.  In a sense people are sticking their necks out to say the cladding is failing the fire safety tests.

This is a loaded statement, because we aren't told what "the" fire safety tests are, and if they were required at the time the cladding was installed.

[Bruce Banner]

23 minutes ago, kzb said:

I'm not clear what you mean.  In a sense people are sticking their necks out to say the cladding is failing the fire safety tests.

This is a loaded statement, because we aren't told what "the" fire safety tests are, and if they were required at the time the cladding was installed.

I meant that no one is going to risk being held responsible for any further loss of life, so they will want to be 100% certain before signing off any building as safe, and since there is no such thing as 100% certainty it is unlikely that any tower blocks will get a clean bill of health in the current climate.

[kzb]

13 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

I meant that no one is going to risk being held responsible for any further loss of life, so they will want to be 100% certain before signing off any building as safe, and since there is no such thing as 100% certainty it is unlikely that any tower blocks will get a clean bill of health in the current climate.

It's not about being 100% safe, that as you say is not possible.

The issue is that ALL samples of cladding taken from buildings are failing "the fire safety tests".

The implication is that samples PASS or FAIL, according to objective criteria.  When subjected to objective tests, all cladding is failing these particular tests.  It's not a matter of opinion.

[ChumpusRex]

23 minutes ago, kzb said:

In is that samples PASS or FAIL, according to objective criteria.  When subjected to objective tests, all cladding is failing these particular tests.  It's not a matter of opinion.

OK. I think I've found it. It;s in a footnote in the following document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621449/170622_letter_to_LAs_and_HAs.pdf

 

The building regs talk about "insulation" and "external surfaces". As I've stated before, there are 2 routes to compliance (materials and performance). 

For compliance via the materials route, the building regs require "insulation" to be limited combustibility (effectively non-combustible), and "external surfaces" to be class 0 (low risk combustible) when tested under BS476.

As alternative, any materials can be used, if a complete facade successfully resists fire spread when tested under BS8414 conditions.

 

What has happened, is that people have been treating the aluminium composite panels as being the "external surface" for the materials route. These panels may meet class 0 combustibility standards, when tested as a product. 

But here is the catch, "insulation" is defined in the building regs as "any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants, etc.)...". So, for the purpose of the building regs, the polyethylene core of these panels is classed as insulation, so must be limited combustibility.  So, by containing insulation, it is necessary for the panels to be "limited combustibility" not class 0.

 

Of course, hindsight is always 20-20, and the definition is there in black-and-white, but the interpretation of the outer surface claddign core is not all that intuitive, which is why it seems to have been missed so frequently.

[stormymonday_2011]

It is probably worth noting that the cladding is not the only reason that the Chalcot estate was evacuated. Apparently there were a number of other breaches of fire and building regulations. This also appears to have been the case at Grenfell Tower where among other things the Risers were not functioning as expected. A lot of these things don't require tests in Labs or involve potentially ambiguous routes for certifying materials. 

On edit - Just to confirm the point that this is about more than external cladding the Evening Standard has quoted the Communities an Culture Secretary that hundreds of fire doors were 'missing' from the Camden high rise blocks which presumably means they are either not there or that non fire doors have been used in their place. There were also breaches of internal walls, blocked stairways and gas piping that had not been properly boxed in fire proof insulation

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hundreds-of-fire-doors-were-missing-from-tower-blocks-evacuated-in-camden-a3573551.html

These are outright breaches of building and fire regulations with no lab tests required. This all tallies with the complaints made by some Grenfell Towers residents who had listed a whole litany of fire risk concerns prior to it going up in flames that had nothing to do with the exterior of the building.

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by stormymonday_2011

[Peter Hun]

 

No problem in Scotland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40406057

[billybong]

2 hours ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

It is probably worth noting that the cladding is not the only reason that the Chalcot estate was evacuated. Apparently there were a number of other breaches of fire and building regulations. This also appears to have been the case at Grenfell Tower where among other things the Risers were not functioning as expected. A lot of these things don't require tests in Labs or involve potentially ambiguous routes for certifying materials. 

On edit - Just to confirm the point that this is about more than external cladding the Evening Standard has quoted the Communities an Culture Secretary that hundreds of fire doors were 'missing' from the Camden high rise blocks which presumably means they are either not there or that non fire doors have been used in their place. There were also breaches of internal walls, blocked stairways and gas piping that had not been properly boxed in fire proof insulation

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hundreds-of-fire-doors-were-missing-from-tower-blocks-evacuated-in-camden-a3573551.html

These are outright breaches of building and fire regulations with no lab tests required. This all tallies with the complaints made by some Grenfell Towers residents who had listed a whole litany of fire risk concerns prior to it going up in flames that had nothing to do with the exterior of the building.

 

There's also the issue of the internal insulation to the Grenfell House flats that never gets mentioned now.  Soon after the fire it was reported that the refurbishment that took place at the same time as the installation of the external cladding also included the installation of internal insulation to the flats - if so how combustible was that.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Tower cladding tests after Grenfell fire lack transparency, say experts

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/26/tower-block-cladding-tests-after-grenfell-fire-lack-transparency-say-experts

The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) has announced the formation of a Commission of Past Presidents to investigate the issue of build quality in the construction industry, and what needs to be done to address it.

(Investigate yourself before you are investigated for building over priced poorly built and insualted shoe boxes for decades )

http://www.ukconstructionweek.com/news/construction-buzz/1423-ciob-to-investigate-build-quality-in-construction-industry-construction-buzz-121

Quote

 

The creation of the council comes on the back of the report into the defects that led to the closure of 17 schools in Edinburgh earlier this year and the recent tragic events at Grenfell Tower in London.The Commission will consider what steps the CIOB needs to take to tackle the already identified issues around management and supervision, the importance for an education framework, and whether there are further steps the industry can take to contribute to improving build quality.  

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Saving For a Space Ship

[kev-all-in]

As per usual this story has the feel of being very carefully managed and massaged, there's so many gaping holes and unanswered questions.

Very interesting post re. The electrical surges a few years ago - not heard that anywhere in the news. Makes you wonder if multiple small fires started simultaneously could have been exacerbated by crap flammable cladding and plastic windows. Maybe the other towers that were evacuated had similar power supply concerns? 

The poor people effected are going to get very frustrated and angry soon - I can see how the fire + incompetent under and then over reaction + sense of a cover up would be ripe conditions for a summer of demos and then inevitable riots.

I see the beeb are saying a 'total of 79 people died' - I thought they'd said it would take weeks to know an accurate estimate but we'll never really know for sure? 

 

[stormymonday_2011]

2 hours ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

Tower cladding tests after Grenfell fire lack transparency, say experts

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/26/tower-block-cladding-tests-after-grenfell-fire-lack-transparency-say-experts

The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) has announced the formation of a Commission of Past Presidents to investigate the issue of build quality in the construction industry, and what needs to be done to address it.

(Investigate yourself before you are investigated for building over priced poorly built and insualted shoe boxes for decades )

http://www.ukconstructionweek.com/news/construction-buzz/1423-ciob-to-investigate-build-quality-in-construction-industry-construction-buzz-121

 

The article is simply VIs talking their book 

The problem for architects and 'fire risk consultants' etc is that the steps to mitigate the risks of using combustible materials such as properly installed fire breaks have either not been followed or the installation has been defective. This has been compounded by the fact the inspection regime has failed to spot the defects. As a consequence Grenfell Tower went up in flames.

The safety tests now being carried out are simply showing that the material used to clad the Tower Blocks is easily combustible. The actual results of the fire in Grenfell Tower shows that the mitigation regimes put in place by government regulation, building companies, architects, risk consultants etc for whatever reason have not worked and cannot be relied upon. I would have thought the combination of the lab tests and the real world failure provide all the proof needed to show that it would be better if such combustible materials were completely outlawed in the structure of tall buildings. It seems pretty clear that no amount of tinkering with the current regulatory regime is likely to make such cladding safe. The reality is that it goes up in flames  all to quickly.

[interestrateripoff]

75 on tv this morning. Surprised the compo lawyers aren't contacting leaseholders about paying for faulty installed cladding.

[LC1]

48 minutes ago, interestrateripoff said:

75 on tv this morning. Surprised the compo lawyers aren't contacting leaseholders about paying for faulty installed cladding.

I've no doubt they will, in the fullness of time, and rightly so.

[winkie]

Mistakes happen and not a big surprise that money sometimes comes before safety.....the worst thing of all this is that the people that expressed their concerns were not listened to or ignored.....this is where society needs to make amends.....big time, brushing dirt under the carpet doesn't make it go away it makes a small heap of insignificant dirt into a big one.

[kzb]

Caught some Labour person on TV last night insisting the death toll is far higher than 79, and that the true death toll is being covered up.  There were far more people jumped out from high floors than reported by the fire brigade.  Reported that there were up to 40 persons present in some flats because of Ramadan.

[Doesn't Commute Anymore]

This will be the next PPI, with lots of claims companies setting up on a no-win-no-fee basis. 

"Have you ever lived in a condemned block with substandard cladding?  Let blah blah blah do the legal work for you...."

On another note, this cladding is probably all over schools and hospitals too.  Councils, NHS Trusts and schools have no spare cash - this is a real financial pinch point in the year ahead. 

 

[copydude]

Personally, I don't believe anyone in the industry, and certainly not cladding specialists, did not know the stuff was a fire hazard.

This is stated in all the brochures, together with a clear recommendation not to use combustible cladding over a certain height. Moreover, enough fire case histories from here to the Middle East attest to this fact.

Chumpus Rex has found a loophole in the precise wording of the regulations. But surely no professional would ever see such a test as anything but a farce. You apply a match to only one side and it's fine. Try the other 5 sides of the cube and it goes up like a tinder box. Well, fancy that.