fire in London tower block

[chris p bacon]

I understand that no one has ever died in a fire with a building fitted throughout with sprinklers.  I would expect in this case the fridge fire would have been doused before the cladding caught, so the answer would be that all lives would have been saved.

 

I wouldn't say that would have been the outcome.

 

A sprinkler head would be sited in the room centre to achieve maximum coverage, if the fridge is sited near an open window and the rear catches fire the sprinkler will activate either with an alarm or when the heat in the room breaks the seal on the nozzle. In the case of this fire I understand the Fire brigade extinguished the flat fire but the cladding was already alight meaning there was probably  an open window.

Whether the heat built up in the room would have been sufficient to activate the sprinkler is unknown. There would though have been sufficient airflow to direct the fire and hot gases to the exterior as that is what happened.

 

I do wonder that as a stop gap, the communal areas are upgraded in the short term to allay fears that residents have in other blocks. Surface sprinkler systems can be relatively straightforward to install.

Edited June 22, 2017 by chris p bacon

[Titan]

I wouldn't say that would have been the outcome.

 

A sprinkler head would be sited in the room centre to achieve maximum coverage, if the fridge is sited near an open window and the rear catches fire the sprinkler will activate either with an alarm or when the heat in the room breaks the seal on the nozzle. In the case of this fire I understand the Fire brigade extinguished the flat fire but the cladding was already alight meaning there was probably  an open window.

Whether the heat built up in the room would have been sufficient to activate the sprinkler is unknown. There would though have been sufficient airflow to direct the fire and hot gases to the exterior as that is what happened.

 

I do wonder that as a stop gap, the communal areas are upgraded in the short term to allay fears that residents have in other blocks. Surface sprinkler systems can be relatively straightforward to install.

 

You may have a point, however I would expect a sprinkler to be able to spray all four walls of the room that it is in. If the room is too big for one head to do this then two would be installed to get coverage. It might not have been able to slow the fire down much, but as it seems that the cladding only just caught fire, it would not have needed to. Then again the tenant having his door open as well would not have helped either...

[jjb1970]

I think we have to be careful with sprinklers. To be sure I was somewhat shocked to find out they weren't fitted in many high rise apartment blocks and think it is an appalling omission. I also think that nothing is infallible and that at this point we do not know enough about the incident to say what difference sprinklers would have made in this case given the unusual means of fire propagation which appears to have taken place (via external cladding). There are many variables, sprinkler head placement, heat level, energy levels and the nature of the fire. I've seen shipboard fire reports where accommodation fires were retarded by sprinklers long enough for people to get out but not to extinguish the fires, and plenty of deaths in engine rooms protected by both sprinklers and high fog systems.

The sprinkler quote about nobody dying in the UK itself is quite interesting, it is "properly installed sprinkler system working the way it's meant to" (my emphasis). Most incidents would be avoided if all the risk management systems provided were properly installed and worked as intended. The emerging story in this case seems to indicate that without the external cladding this would have been a minor incident nobody outside of the building would ever have heard of.

When the report is published we should have the answer to this question.

[Zomboid]

I do wonder that as a stop gap, the communal areas are upgraded in the short term to allay fears that residents have in other blocks. Surface sprinkler systems can be relatively straightforward to install.

The issue with that is that temporary stop gap solutions have a habit of becoming permanent. So if that is enough to satisfactorily mitigate the risks then it would be a good thing. But if not then it would be better to do nothing so that pressure can be maintained to get a proper solution.

[PhilJ W]

Sorry I can't post it here but there is a documentary on facebook about the flamibility of cladding used on blocks of flats. Various building inspectors, engineers and architects were concerned that this was being used. The documentry was aired in 1984!

[chris p bacon]

Sorry I can't post it here but there is a documentary on facebook about the flamibility of cladding used on blocks of flats. Various building inspectors, engineers and architects were concerned that this was being used. The documentry was aired in 1984!

 

The cladding we fitted in the 80's bears no resemblance to what is currently available.

 

I have a feeling that the cladding on this building was driven by a need to make the building "Greener." Recent priorities for building inspection have been heat loss and insulation, just glancing at some specs for insulation board, fire retardancy is low down on the list with importance given to U values. 

[chris p bacon]

The issue with that is that temporary stop gap solutions have a habit of becoming permanent. So if that is enough to satisfactorily mitigate the risks then it would be a good thing. But if not then it would be better to do nothing so that pressure can be maintained to get a proper solution.

I agree with you, but sadly if more work is required it would come down to cost.   Although people want standards to be the highest, they also want someone else to pay for it. 

 

With this building I doubt whether sprinklers would have done as much as we think. Looking at some construction pictures it was an open floor build which means there were no concrete divisions between flats. 

[rockershovel]

From this morning's news, it seems that action is developing in various quarters - Camden Council, Premier Inn, the list goes on... Leonor F Loree's famous comment on management practices seems to apply, but press on...

[Bernard Lamb]

Pardon? As opposed to?

How long you got?

I thought it was a very smart response to my post.

In very different ways it looks as though Ivan and myself have come across the same people.

Bernard

[Bernard Lamb]

 

 

I have a feeling that the cladding on this building was driven by a need to make the building "Greener." Recent priorities for building inspection have been heat loss and insulation, just glancing at some specs for insulation board, fire retardancy is low down on the list with importance given to U values. 

Rather more than a feeling, as it was clearly stated at a very early stage. There was even a phrase used about saving the tenants money by reducing their fuel bills.

Bernard

[meil]

From this morning's news, it seems that action is developing in various quarters - Camden Council, Premier Inn, the list goes on... Leonor F Loree's famous comment on management practices seems to apply, but press on...

Now that Priemier Inn are involved the position is clear. Providing their hotel has a storey above 18m then the external walls have to have a cladding system of at least A2 rating in accordance with BS EN 13501. The stated fire rating of Reynobond is B and as a consequence is not compliant with the Authorised Document B and therefore unlikely to comply with the Building Regulations with regard to external fire spread.

Edited June 23, 2017 by meil

[jjb1970]

Well intentioned and entirely sensible proposals (such as insulating buildings to reduce energy use) can result in very undesirable outcomes if not properly implemented. Insulating buildings is not the problem, indeed it strikes me as not especially sensible not to insulate them, it is how they’re insulated.

I still find the idea of a single means of access/egress for a high rise apartment building quite scary, and unfortunately a short coming like that is probably impracticable to change.

Either way, it seems there are plenty of questions for the inquiry to consider.

[Glorious NSE]

Now that Priemier Inn are involved the position is clear. Providing their hotel has a storey above 18m then the external walls have to have a cladding system of at least A2 rating I accordance with BS EN 13501. The stated fire rating of Reynobond is B and as a consequence is not compliant with the Authorised Document B and therefore unlikely to comply with the Building Regulations with regard to external fire spread.

Having seen our PM blatantly avoid answering the question of whether this materiel met building and fire regs or not yesterday, I think there's more to come out on this....

[EddieB]

Having seen our PM blatantly avoid answering the question of whether this materiel met building and fire regs or not yesterday, I think there's more to come out on this....

How could she?  Aside from having the requisite technical knowledge (material, mode of installation, key aspects of the regulations), any answer could be prejudicial to the inquiry.  The questioners should know this - but play to the gullible when they ask unanswerable questions.

[rockershovel]

Having seen our PM blatantly avoid answering the question of whether this materiel met building and fire regs or not yesterday, I think there's more to come out on this....

Indeed. As with the "tenancy vs occupancy" issue, I find it very difficult to believe that the problem was not well known by those in a position to know.

 

This is where the single-issue activism which forms so much of what passes for public debate, is so ineffective. Decisions of this sort don't appear for single, clearly defined reasons; they arise from combinations of competing and sometimes, contradictory requirements and pressures. Take decisions without reflecting the full range of factors, and the chances of ending up with a demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences is correspondingly increased.

How could she? Aside from having the requisite technical knowledge (material, mode of installation, key aspects of the regulations), any answer could be prejudicial to the inquiry. The questioners should know this - but play to the gullible when they ask unanswerable questions.

First rule of appearing as a witness - don't offer opinions, or be drawn into answering questions, beyond your expertise. Edited June 23, 2017 by rockershovel

[Glorious NSE]

How could she?  Aside from having the requisite technical knowledge (material, mode of installation, key aspects of the regulations), any answer could be prejudicial to the inquiry.  The questioners should know this - but play to the gullible when they ask unanswerable questions.

Sorry I disagree - I'd have expected there to be a straight-ish answer available to that question without getting drawn into the specifics of this disaster - "Material X meets building regs and fire regs for buildings over 18m" or "Materiel X does not meet building and fire regs for buildings over 18m"*.

 

I don't believe for a second that the PM has no knowledge of what the actual situation is. How could she be ordering actions to be taken (and they clearly have been) without any knowledge? <Maybe treat that as rhetorical.... >

 

If the simple fact of what materials do and do not meet building/fire regs is some kind of secret that can only come out by having a major incident enquiry then surely it's now impossible for anyone to build anything over 18m....

 

We clearly currently have professional folk stating that it does meet them, and other professional folk stating that it does not meet them. You'd think obviously one or the other party would be easily proven wrong, but the lack of a clear answer makes it sound like the real answer is "it's complicated" - there's more to come....

 

(*Or met them until....Or meets one but not the other....Or whatever....)

 

 

 

 

 

[chris p bacon]

Having seen our PM blatantly avoid answering the question of whether this materiel met building and fire regs or not yesterday, I think there's more to come out on this....

 

Considering the materials were inspected and passed at the time of construction,  why should the PM be expected to answer a technical question about a material which has differing properties depending upon it's means of installation.

 

It's useless point scoring journalism with the sole purpose of making people look either uncaring or dumb.  Listening to the news this morning one journalist admitted that after 10 days of reading about regs and materials he was still confused about what could be used and where. 

[EddieB]

^ ^ ^

What he said!

 

Sorry I disagree - I'd have expected there to be a straight-ish answer available to that question without getting drawn into the specifics of this disaster - "Material X meets building regs and fire regs for buildings over 18m" or "Materiel X does not meet building and fire regs for buildings over 18m"*.

I don't believe for a second that the PM has no knowledge of what the actual situation is. How could she be ordering actions to be taken (and they clearly have been) without any knowledge? <Maybe treat that as rhetorical.... >
 

Edited June 23, 2017 by EddieB

[Horsetan]

....one journalist admitted that after 10 days of reading about regs and materials he was still confused about what could be used and where. 

 

I wonder if it would be safe to say that a very great number of "mainstream media" journalists are in a similar position?

[Glorious NSE]

Considering the materials were inspected and passed at the time of construction

 

So you're saying it does meet them? (Or at least did, at the time?)

[ian]

So you're saying it does meet them? (Or at least did, at the time?)

 

In theory.

 

It is however possible that the inspector(s) were misinformed, didn't inspect properly, were bribed, threatened or in collusion, were shown an area of work done to specification whilst other areas had been skimped, or any one of an almost limitless number of possibilities before you get on to the question of the regulations and their fitness for purpose.

[Nearholmer]

The PM may be ill-informed, or as confused as all other non-experts, but she may well be carefully leaving the question of the legality or otherwise of the cladding for a court of law to rule on.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Nearholmer

[chris p bacon]

So you're saying it does meet them? (Or at least did, at the time?)

 

Read the regs and spec for the time and see what you think. 

 

The use of materials is dependent upon not just their qualities but the means of fixing. A 100% fireproof material is no use if it is fixed to combustible supports, in the same way a fire wall is made up of materials that on their own don't meet the spec but the combination does.

For example people think that steel is 'fireproof,' and yet we have to surround it in fire retardant board as when subjected to heat, it twists and bends and buildings lose structural integrity. Timber beams on the other hand are combustible but take longer to burn through and lose integrity.

 

Which do you use?  It really isn't a simple yes/no answer to a point scoring journo on the hoof.  

 

On that point I've found that listening to the news I have to say I'm getting tired of what were once reputable news outlets relying on Facebook comments and soundbite journalism as well as seemingly driving the headlines and agenda rather than reporting it in a balanced way.

[jjb1970]

The problem with commenting on standards and compliance is that there are so many variables that unless you are familiar with both the specifics of this case and also the applicable standards, and have the requisite technical knowledge to understand it all, any comments are pretty much meaningless. And I’m not sure any MP is in a position to offer an informed comment or opinion.

I used to write classification society rules for a living and am still in several ISO and ASTM working groups. The classic mistake people make is to look at rules or standards in isolation, ignoring linked requirements that can completely change things. People may think this is being wilfully contrarian, but not only is it entirely possible for a material to be simultaneously compliant and non-compliant with regulations, it is quite normal as it all depends on application specific factors and conditions of use. Unless you understand those variables and conditions then it is all guesswork. One thing I’ve found over and over again is that very few people ever read a type approval certificate. Time and time again I’ve seen approval certificates clearly include limitations that are ignored because nobody reads them. And then there is the propensity of people to assume that an approval must mean something is good without bothering to check whether the standards against which it has been approved are relevant to the application or use.

And the elephant in the room is that any regulation or standard is only as good as it’s application. People are not infallible, this may not fit into the current media driven climate but sometimes certificates are issued which shouldn’t have been because people make mistakes and stuff is approved which should never have been approved. Which is clearly wrong, but I can’t see how such a failure is the fault of politicians or those who use the approved materials (providing it is used in accordance with standards and regulations). Ultimately, at some point you have to rely on the competence, judgement and behaviours of those employed in verification organisations, inspection bodies etc.

All of which may be irrelevant in this case but I do have sympathy for politicians in this respect, these are issues which are outside the competence of the vast majority of people and it is cheap political points scoring from the opposition to try and demand that Theresa May suddenly transforms herself into a Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the ICE or IFE or CIBSE or something.

[Horsetan]

....I'm getting tired of what were once reputable news outlets relying on Facebook comments and soundbite journalism as well as seemingly driving the headlines and agenda rather than reporting it in a balanced way.

 

It's been deteriorating for years, although the era of the internet and antisocial media has made it worse.

 

Traditional styles of reporting were still very prevalent in Irish newspapers such as The Irish Times and the Irish Independent until relatively recently, but even they resorted to pulling in AP and Reuters inserts to fill up the Foreign News sections.