News London Tower Block Fire: Latest News Updates

Click For Summary
The Grenfell Tower fire has raised serious concerns about fire safety regulations in high-rise buildings, particularly regarding the absence of active sprinklers and alarms. Experts have noted that the building's design and recent refurbishment may have contributed to the rapid spread of the fire, with cladding potentially igniting and exacerbating the situation. Investigations are ongoing, with discussions around possible manslaughter charges due to negligence in adhering to safety standards. Critics argue that funding cuts and inadequate regulations have left many older buildings vulnerable, as retrofitting for safety measures is often costly or impractical. The tragedy highlights the urgent need for improved fire safety protocols in the UK to prevent similar disasters in the future.
  • #31
Just a bit more news. The architect is Studio E, and hasn't commented yet.

http://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/12837-grenfell-tower-fire-tragedy-sparks-safety-row

The Grenfell inferno has increased doubts about U.K. building regulations on ACM cladding. Around 600 U.K. high-rises are estimated to have been retrofitted with ACM to improve their appearance and energy efficiency. Cladding samples are being rushed for combustibility tests, conducted by the building research organization BRE Group, Watford.

At press time, all 95 samples from 32 regions failed BRE’s tests, according to the Dept. for Communities and Local Government. A spokesman says that high failure rate is because the riskiest buildings were tested first.

For conventional designs, U.K. building regulations set out minimum performance requirements. Details of how to comply are published in the so-called Approved Documents, which reference British standards and other technical guidance. In England, “any insulation product” on buildings taller than 18 m must be of “limited combustibility,” a term the documents define. But the wording is ambiguous, according to Metcalf. Official guidance “doesn’t explicitly say that the cladding should be of limited combustibility,” explains Metcalf. “Most people have interpreted it to mean it doesn’t need to be.”
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
256bits said:
Didn't anybody there remember the movie Towering Inferno?
The building in that movie didn't burn as fast as this one.
 
  • #33
The following article gives some insight: Why do England's high-rises keep failing fire tests?

"The short answer is: the organisations responsible for maintaining standards in the building industry have been advising contractors not to take the regulations too literally."​

The article expands this short answer in some detail.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy and Mikezilla
  • #34
From the above BBC article:

Newsnight reported, however, on a troubling fourth route. The National House Building Council (NHBC) is a big player in building inspection. Last year, they issued guidance which states that you can use a variety of sub-A2 insulation boards with B-grade external cladding - and you can do all of that without even a desktop study.

That effectively means that a sector body involved in signing off buildings unilaterally decided that largely using B-grade material is now sufficient, not A2. NHBC themselves state that "this is on the basis of NHBC having reviewed a significant quantity of data from a range of tests and desktop assessments."​

I doubt they reviewed or assessed much of anything given recent high-rise fires throughout the world with similar cladding. If you're in the industry you should be looking at this sort of stuff, not to mention asking why others in EU, US and elsewhere have stricter standards on these materials.

Gross negligence at best.
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
I don't get it. From what I have heard, there were no active sprinklers or alarms, though I'm not sure if that means they didn't exist or weren't working. I'm not sure the age of the building, but anything less than 20 years old should be sprinklered.

This shouldn't happen in a developed country.

The curse of politicians greed and their inability to see to the obvious.

Money.Money.Money.
 
  • #37
The material used is banned in the uk. I think its 60 high rise flats that are unsafe. One got evacuated in the middle of the night.
 
  • #38
How terrible! Hope everyone is safe :(
 
  • #39
BL4CKB0X97 said:
The curse of politicians greed and their inability to see to the obvious.

Money.Money.Money.

It is more complicated than that. This tower -like most towers of this type- was built in the last 60s/early 70s . The idea was to build good, affordable housing for "ordinary people" but a lot of corners were cut (I've lived on an counsel estate not far from Grenfell tower which was built around the same time) .

Part of the problem that many of these towers are today located in VERY expensive areas (back in the 70s most of the people living around there were immigrants from the west Indies; i.e. it was a poor area) ; the Grenfell tower is in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea where some of the most expensive houses/flats in the WORLD are located and no "normal" person can afford to buy or rent an house of flat there (a "cheap" house in the area will cost >£700K and if you are renting you are looking at maybe £2000 a month for a two bedroom flat).

Now, the counsel still owns many (but not all) of the flats in these towers and the rent is controlled (very cheap by London standards), meaning it is usually the only place where these people can afford to live. This means that if/when these towers are demolished there is simply nowhere for the people to go, towers got a bad reputation in the UK so counsels haven't built many new ones in the past 30 years or so and you would need a large amount of space if you were to two or three story houses with 120 flats. That amount of space would cost an enormous amount of money to buy(not that it is available)

All of this means that whereas many of these towers should probably be demolished we will be stuck with them for a long time; which is why they are being renovated.
 
  • #41
f95toli said:
It is more complicated than that. This tower -like most towers of this type- was built in the last 60s/early 70s . The idea was to build good, affordable housing for "ordinary people" but a lot of corners were cut (I've lived on an counsel estate not far from Grenfell tower which was built around the same time) .

Part of the problem that many of these towers are today located in VERY expensive areas (back in the 70s most of the people living around there were immigrants from the west Indies; i.e. it was a poor area) ; the Grenfell tower is in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea where some of the most expensive houses/flats in the WORLD are located and no "normal" person can afford to buy or rent an house of flat there (a "cheap" house in the area will cost >£700K and if you are renting you are looking at maybe £2000 a month for a two bedroom flat).

Now, the counsel still owns many (but not all) of the flats in these towers and the rent is controlled (very cheap by London standards), meaning it is usually the only place where these people can afford to live. This means that if/when these towers are demolished there is simply nowhere for the people to go, towers got a bad reputation in the UK so counsels haven't built many new ones in the past 30 years or so and you would need a large amount of space if you were to two or three story houses with 120 flats. That amount of space would cost an enormous amount of money to buy(not that it is available)

All of this means that whereas many of these towers should probably be demolished we will be stuck with them for a long time; which is why they are being renovated.
The news said that the cladding was put in place during a recent refurbishment. I was under the impression that it was the cladding (and gas lines i hear occasionally) that were the problem.
 
  • #42
BL4CKB0X97 said:
The news said that the cladding was put in place during a recent refurbishment. I was under the impression that it was the cladding (and gas lines i hear occasionally) that were the problem.

Indeed, the refurbishment wasn't even finished yet which is -presumably- why not all the new gas lines had been boxed in (they had finished work in about 1/3 of the flats).
 
  • #43
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tests-fail-local-authorities-uk-a7816311.html

Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association, attacked the Government for testing only the core of the panels on high-rise blocks and not the insulation behind them, which may not be fire-resistant.

“The Government has not done the retest properly,” the Tory peer said.

“They are not testing the whole system. We should be testing the insulation. There is more than a good chance that the insulation is probably the main problem.”​
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #44
I agree.
 
  • #45
Another thing Jim is the window replacements in the refurb. If they were brought forward from the original concrete frames (they were at least planned for from architect drawings), you have gaps to be filled with insulation and caulk. If those materials aren't fire-resistant, then fire could easily travel from inside to out and vice versa long before the glass breaks from the heat. Judging from video and seeing nearly every flat engulfed in flames, I'd say this is the case, and no, those weren't fire-stopping materials they used.

Windows are huge in the energy efficiency game. It really looks to me like the authorities tried to slap on as much insulation and glass on this building as they possibly could in the cheapest way possible to cut future costs, and simply ignored the fire risks. After all, it's public housing and residents (mostly immigrants) can only afford to live there because they're on the public dole to begin with. It's a mess in UK, but no excuse for ppl dying like that.
 
  • #46
Disasters are always a string of dominoes set up ready to topple.
Biggest single mistake i see was that two inch air space between the fire 'resistant but not fireproof' foam and the reflective aluminum rain shield .
from post #18
upload_2017-7-1_9-55-14.png


Anybody who's ever burned a trash pile knows about the chimney effect and how it'll make stuff that's not supposed to burn, burn.

Most people think these are for mechanical bracing behind their drywall. But they're firestops , to block the chimney effect.

http://www.askthebuilder.com/fire-stop-construction/
upload_2017-7-1_9-51-23.png


Somebody violated common sense .

old jim
 
  • #47
No conflict of interest here, sigh...

Mark Allen is a technical director for the UK arm of Saint-Gobain, an owner of Celotex, which produced the insulation used in the tower.

He is also a member of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations about industry regulations to Communities Secretary Sajid Javid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tower-insulation-boss-government-adviser.html​
 
  • #48
From that Daily Mail piece:

However, its 'health and safety datasheet' notes: 'The products will burn if exposed to a fire of sufficient heat and intensity.'

Allen's LinkedIn profile shows degrees in architecture and business management .
 
  • #49
It's interesting Jim that Studio E spec'd out at least two different cladding materials in 2014. One was the ACM, but they chose a glass fibre reinforced concrete cladding for the triangular pillars.

GRC is a new thing that can be shaped in all sorts of intricate ways. This stuff doesn't sound flammable at all, although it contains a small percentage of recycled materials.

I doubt this was the material approved by authorities, probably due to cost-cutting. If so, what was used, and how was it installed?
 
  • #50
Just to add, the "chimney effect" was most pronounced at those triangular pillars. Flames spread up far faster than sideways. Looks to me like the architect knew the pillars presented a challenge that called for different material, but that was changed.

Just me speculating from what's been disclosed so far.
 
  • #51
Statement from Rydon on their Grenfell case study web page which has since been taken down...

Our total commitment to community-driven solutions and to incorporating low carbon technology into our programmes is helping to establish us as industry leaders in this field.​
 
  • #52
If anyone's still interested in this topic, I'd say to just follow BBC from here on out. Good reporting over there:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40465399

The confidential reports obtained by Newsnight contain assessments that persuaded inspectors that a given cladding design was safe and met legal standards.

Part of the engineers' reasoning was that, in a fire test, you would get similar results if you were to use either combustible aluminium panels or non-combustible ceramic tiles.

...While there is no test that contradicts the authors' conclusions about the safety of the proposed cladding system, experts were surprised at the arguments advanced by the authors, which they felt was not strongly supported by evidence.​
 
  • #53
Mikezilla said:
...While there is no test that contradicts the authors' conclusions about the safety of the proposed cladding system,
Most often it's not what we don't know that hurts us,
it's what we thought we knew.
 
  • #54
jim hardy said:
They're still focused on the cladding not the foam fuel behind it.

For those interested, the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for the foam is at:
http://www.gaf.com/Commercial_Roofing_Systems/EnergyGuard_Insulation/EnergyGuard_PolyIso_Insulation/EnergyGuard_ISO_Insulation_MSDS_1088.pdf

Note the content of Pentane in section15:

Chemical Name
==============
Ethyldimethylmethane
(Isopentane) CAS # 78-78-4

n-Pentane CAS # 109-66-0

Fibrous Glass (Fiberglass)

Tris (monochloropropyl) Phosphate CAS # 13674-84-5

and also Section 5 HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS:
Emits dense, black smoke when burned. Carbon dioxide and
carbon monoxide, phosphorus oxides, and phosphoric acid.

RECOMMENDED FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES:
Wear impermeable protective clothing and self-contained
breathing apparatus.

I wouldn't want to live or work in a box made of that stuff, especially with a skin of polyethylene with an Aluminium reflector.

If you want to see how polyehtylene burns, do it outdoors and stay upwind. (Sandwhich bags or gallon milk jugs.)
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #55
So it turns out they did use GRC (concrete cladding), but only on the ground floor!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ified-by-architects-only-used-on-ground-floor

I'll bet Studio E originally planned for these to cover the triangular pillars all the way up. This is costlier and heavier stuff, but may have saved the building and many lives had it been used (A1 fire rating). Studio E also proposed zinc cladding, not aluminum.

Looks to me like these architects knew what they were doing and originally designed with fire risk in mind.

There's little you can do when a cost-cutting client demands inferior materials that are actually legal and code- compliant. However, if Studio E really knew their stuff (it appears they did), the ethical thing to do would've been to tell KCTMO to go scratch and find another architect.
 
  • #56
Gov now doing a more thorough test: three types of ACM with different types of insulation. Should've been done years ago.

Seems to have left one social housing provider in Manchester in the dark...

“Investigatory work began last week to remove cladding from our affected blocks, which has been temporarily replaced with aluminium panels to protect the building and ensure it remains watertight.

“However, Government advice regarding the removal of cladding is now unclear. In line with other housing providers in Salford and across the country, we’ve now halted the removal of further cladding until we have clearer guidance from the authorities on the best and safest solution to replace the affected cladding.​

ACM alone is not the big issue here. Authorities are slowly coming around to that fact.

“As an additional precautionary measure, we have increased our existing 24/7, CCTV security and response service by providing extra patrols on all blocks with cladding systems and strengthened safety arrangements. We are also beginning the next stage of our Safety Enhancement Work to ensure our blocks meet the highest safety standards.​

https://www.salixhomes.org/news/updated-important-fire-safety-information

Stay vigilant, my friends.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
Hmm, so under EU standard EN 13501, only a "single burn" test applied to each material is deemed adequate. Under British Standard 8414, a "whole system test" is required, but is only voluntary. Grenfell would not have passed this test.

Furthermore, Celotex claimed their material had been tested by BRE and met fire safety requirements. BRE responded that this test referred to a different installation, and stated "Celotex should not be claiming that their insulation product can be used generically in any other cladding system."

Britain still in EU for a while despite exit referendum. Can they not legally enforce their own standard at present?
 
  • #58
Some news about a 3rd product that was used, made by Kingspan. Their statement:

https://www.channel4.com/news/grenfell-tower-fire-third-key-cladding-product-revealed

...subsequent to the Grenfell tragedy we became aware that a very small quantity of Kingspan Kooltherm K15 (less than 5% of the estimated total external insulation used on the Tower) was (…) involved in the refurbishment.

Whilst we are still seeking to establish the facts of what occurred, it appears that Kooltherm K15 may have been used as a component in some of the ventilated rainscreen system that was used to upgrade the Grenfell Tower façade, however we have not been able to fully confirm how it was used.

We are, however, extremely surprised to find our phenolic insulation product may have been used alongside a PIR board.(cut)

Kooltherm K15 has been successfully tested as a component in a range of ventilated rainscreen systems, to BS 8414–1: 2002 and BS 8414–2: 2005, as required by one route to compliance with the Building Regulations for buildings above 18 metres. So far as we are aware, Kooltherm K15 has never been tested with a standard polyethylene (PE) core Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) panel, and we would be very surprised if such a system combining a PE core with any insulation material would ever pass the appropriate BS 8414 large scale test.

As we have stated before, given our focus on fire safety, the use of Kooltherm K15 in construction systems that are non-compliant with Building Regulations would never be acceptable to Kingspan. ​
 
  • #59
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40602991

...ambiguous drafting in the building regulations mean that some developers, cladders and architects have assumed that this rule only applied to the insulation on the outsides of buildings, not the exterior of the cladding.

Adrian Buckmaster, director of TetraClad, a cladding company, said: "The government is now... saying that both the insulation layer and the outer layer they believe should be of a... non-combustible class, whereas if I read the documents as they are at the moment, the clauses specifically say just the insulation and the outer layer is a completely different standard."​

Next bit:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ng-control-warned-about-refit-insulation-plan

Building safety experts warned in 2014 that the insulation planned for use on Grenfell Tower – which was installed and which fuelled the fatal fire in June – should be used only with non-combustible cladding.

The Guardian has seen a formal certificate issued by the building inspectors’ organisation, Local Authority Building Control, stating that the insulation chosen for the £10m tower refit was acceptable for use on tall buildings only if used with fibre cement panels, which do not burn..​

Looks like the regulations are sound, but where was enforcement?
 
  • #60
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...r-fire-building-material-now-leading-suspect/

Claire Benson, a fire and explosion specialist at London South Bank University, argues that the enforcement of regulations is an equally important consideration. ‘It might not be that the regulations are faulty, it might just be that people weren’t doing what they were supposed to be doing and nobody noticed,’ she tells Chemistry World. ‘There is a section in the regs that says that for buildings over 18 metres any insulation or “filler” material has to be of limited combustibility—I read that as being pretty much anything you use on the outside.’

‘You used to have to have fire inspections by the authorities to check that everything was all right and we don’t have that anymore, so it’s been entirely put in the hands of people who own the buildings.’​
 

Similar threads

Robot Vacuum Escapes Cambridge Travelodge: Nature Abhors a Vacuum
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Alan White: Legendary Drummer with Yes, Dies at 72
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Archimedes' Weapon: Focussing Mirror Melts Car in London
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
News Brett Crozier, Captain of aircraft carrier fired
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
News Massive Fire at Notre Dame cathedral
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
Cases of Monkey Pox in England/UK, US, Portugal, Spain
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
News What happened during the London terror attack on 3/22/17?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
What is the Latest Update on the US Federal Science Budget?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?
  • · Replies 364 ·
13
Replies
364
Views
27K
News China's Alarming Air Pollution: 'Airpocalypse' Smog
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K