London Tower Block Fire: Latest News Updates

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nidum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Block Fire Tower
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Grenfell Tower fire in London highlighted severe deficiencies in fire safety standards, particularly the lack of active sprinkler systems and alarms in high-rise buildings. Fire inspector Geoff Wilkinson stated that the building did not perform as expected during the fire, which was exacerbated by the building's cladding. The Grenfell Tower, built in 1974 and recently refurbished, lacked adequate safety measures, leading to calls for accountability and potential manslaughter charges against those responsible for its maintenance. The discussion emphasizes the urgent need for regulatory reform in fire safety standards for high-rise buildings.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of high-rise building fire safety regulations
  • Knowledge of fire sprinkler system requirements in the UK
  • Familiarity with building materials and their fire performance standards
  • Awareness of the historical context of fire safety legislation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research UK fire safety regulations and their evolution post-Grenfell
  • Investigate the role of building cladding materials in fire spread
  • Examine case studies of high-rise fires and their outcomes
  • Learn about the implications of retrofitting fire safety systems in older buildings
USEFUL FOR

Fire safety professionals, building inspectors, urban planners, and anyone involved in high-rise building management or fire safety regulation reform will benefit from this discussion.

  • #61
Can it get any worse?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Looks like there's at least a half dozen entities playing the game of "Blame those guys instead" .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #63
jim hardy said:
Looks like there's at least a half dozen entities playing the game of "Blame those guys instead" .
They must have gone to the Flint School of Public Health.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G, jim hardy and BillTre
  • #64
OK, so it's more than a month and we still don't know who, if anyone, violated which regulation.

This is a problem with regulation-based safety. The regulations can swell to the point where it takes an army of lawyers to find out who has to do what, and safety paperwork becomes the focus, not actual safety.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and jim hardy
  • #65
Vanadium 50 said:
and safety paperwork becomes the focus, not actual safety.

That's the head of the nail right there.

That buildings can't read is anathema to paper shufflers.

Korean engineers I met at their KORI nuke plant have a saying -
"Give your process a soul. "
In other words - don't just squeak by the regulations , do the right thing.

Isn't that what wrecked San Onofre , short-cutting the design review process for steam generators?

old jim
 
  • #66
Pray tell what the hell is going on over there?

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...cladding-from-towers-could-increase-fire-risk

The government has warned landlords that stripping suspect cladding from buildings in the wake of the Grenfell Tower blaze could increase the risk of fire, as it emerged combustible insulation has been left exposed for weeks on blocks in Salford that are home to more than 1,000 people.

Dozens of councils nationwide have been removing polyethylene-filled aluminium panels like those used on Grenfell, but now the department of communities and local government has warned building owners “not to create conditions which may worsen the integrity of the cladding system … [including] leaving material exposed which could reduce fire performance”.

The warning to landlords came as the Guardian established that insulation which is more combustible than that used across Grenfell Tower has been left exposed for up to three weeks on at least six blocks on the Pendleton estate in Salford, including at least one 22 storey tower.

...“People in this block and the other blocks want the insulation taken out,” said Jon Smith, a resident for the last 20 years of the 22 storey Thorne House on the Pendleton estate. “It is more dangerous in our opinion than the cladding that covers it because it is combustible. Now it is exposed, you only need some idiot after a night on the drink deciding to conduct their own fire test and the whole block goes up.”

Read the whole article. As a contractor, I'm dumbfounded.

Landlord jumped the gun on cladding. But to leave the insulation exposed like that for weeks is either incompetence, bureaucracy or both. Somebody's got to mind the store, or there won't be enough lawyers.
 
  • #67
If you're looking for lawsuits, Arconic has a shareholder going after them.

Everybody involved with this is going to get served: Celotex, Rydon, Harley Facades, RBKC. Perhaps architects depending on Inquiry. UK put faith in companies to operate safely, they didn't, so that's who they'll fine. The cynic in me says jail time for Harley since they're smallest of bunch.

In any case, main focus should be on getting other buildings up to code. If authorities can't enforce regulations, at least let tenants know.
 
  • #68
Apparently the ACM and insulation don't even meet EU standards either...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40645205

According to data released by French authorities, and seen by the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme, the cladding would have released 43.2 MJ/kg of heat.


The European A2 standard for "limited combustibility" is 3 MJ/kg.


The foam insulation underneath the cladding was, separately, thought to emit around 26 MJ/kg of heat.

...An estimated 18 tonnes of insulation foam and eight tonnes of cladding panels were attached to the tower, analysis of planning documents by the University of Leeds suggests.

The energy released when all these combustible materials burned would have been equivalent to around 51 tonnes of pinewood wrapped around the building in two thin 12mm sheets, separated by a 50mm gap with holes cut out for windows, it says.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 364 ·
13
Replies
364
Views
28K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 195 ·
7
Replies
195
Views
24K
Replies
4
Views
1K