Grenfell Tower Block Fire

[Bob Williams]

Thanks are due to Drezha for the experience-derived details. Thanks also to Edp for expanding upon Drezha’s account.

I was considering finding and posting Ed’s link to the refridgerator issue, you beat me to it Ed! I knew I had seen a short video from the guy who described the fridge explosion. I now think that the inevitable confusion which surrounds the case of a Big Incident and Too Many Possible Causes, has arrived. Complicated by self-confessed ‘experts’ who have their own hypothetical theories, which are then taken up and used in hysterical outpourings to the media. Some media outlets will of course use these ‘theories’ in banner headlines, resulting in the current fear engendered in thousands of high rise residents throughout the UK.

As Drezha has demonstrated, there is no one “cause” for the whole terrible event. Confusion and obfuscation will inevitably result in a long, expensive Public Inquiry which will possibly see some minor sacrificial heads roll. The proposed Criminal Investigation may be a different matter. Time and a great deal of harrumphing by elderly figureheads, will eat away at any Inquiry. Look at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: stalled by resignations, witnesses and key figures ageing.

I am not going the conspiracy route here, but this is what always happens in this country to most Public Inquiries. The truth may not be buried, it is usually moved sideways until time destroys its impact.

Er antwortete mit dem ihn eigenem zynismus…

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Ed P]

I found the instrument that should be used. It is the Fire & Safety Legislative Guidance page 52 et seq.

All it requires is that a notice is issued from the HHSRS governing body (the Minister) to all local authorities stating that evidence from numerous cases of fire has shown that use of the insulation board in question fails to  meet fire safety standards and that all dwellings greater than 18 metres in height constructed using this material as an exterior cladding have now been found to have a risk assessment rating of one, requiring immediate remedial measures by local housing authorities.

It requires a simple approach as the Government has ham-strung the abilities of the Fire & Rescue bodies through lack of funding. It is a pity it requires action by this inept Government.

[dwynnehugh]

I note that some have equated this fire and resulting tragedy to that of an aircraft disaster and subsequent national investigations there into – what becomes abundantly clear from such aircraft investigations that the ‘disaster’ was as a result of a series of minor incidents which cumulated in the final tragedy.  I am almost certain that that is what will be found here.

The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans

[Ed P]

dwynnehugh wrote:

I note that some have equated this fire and resulting tragedy to that of an aircraft disaster and subsequent national investigations there into – what becomes abundantly clear from such aircraft investigations that the ‘disaster’ was as a result of a series of minor incidents which cumulated in the final tragedy. I am almost certain that that is what will be found here.

Certainly I agree that is probably the case with respect to the cause and spread of the fire to the outside. The rapid vertical propagation is however the main factor in the scale of the tragedy.  It appears from accounts so far presented that this board consists of a polyethylene fibre interior encased (at least on one side) by aluminum sheet. Choosing a board  containing low melting point( (130c)  polyethylene fibres was almost certainly the critical error. It would not take much fire exposure to turn the insides to runny flammable liquids just looking for ways to wick down onto any ignition sources. Once started this would be like a vertical chain reaction.

[Drezha]

Ed P wrote:

I found the instrument that should be used. It is the Fire & Safety Legislative Guidance page 52 et seq. All it requires is that a notice is issued from the HHSRS governing body (the Minister) to all local authorities stating that evidence from numerous cases of fire has shown that use of the insulation board in question fails to meet fire safety standards and that all dwellings greater than 18 metres in height constructed using this material as an exterior cladding have now been found to have a risk assessment rating of one, requiring immediate remedial measures by local housing authorities. It requires a simple approach as the Government has ham-strung the abilities of the Fire & Rescue bodies through lack of funding. It is a pity it requires action by this inept Government.

Being a pedant, you mean the Housing Act 2004, as the document you reference is a CFOA publication. But interesting read – especially as a risk assessor, I’ve never heard of the HHSRS. But I don’t recall it being mentioned in the PAS guidance for fire risk assessments and that’s the “gold standard” for fire risk assessment.

An issue is that the testing standards may pass the material as it may be sufficient. However, installed on site poorly, it might be something different altogether and you can’t test for that.

"Everything looks interesting until you do it. Then you find it’s just another job" - Terry Pratchett

[Les.]

Dehza said :–

Firstly, Class 0 materials don’t actually exist – though technically, the requirements are met by being incombustible. Materials such as mineral fibre achieve this, but need some form of support which may be combustible.

40 years ago I did a lot with mineral fibres, mostly the very high temperature high grade types. (Kaowool, Fibrefrax) Not sure if the companies who made cited products  still exist, but these were available both as loose material, rolls of woolen blanket (I still have some) and also RIGID BOARD. Surely that WOULD meet the specification?

And there was the shuttle, ceramic fibre tiles.

Les.

[Ed P]

In case you missed it, this BBC report covers the testing and approval for the cladding materials. Looks like  Exova (54% Dutch owned – Tabasco BV) s going to have to answer a lot of very hard questions – especially with respect to their testing procedures  and how any ‘desk-top’ analyses apparently ignored actual experience of high-rise building fires.

[Bob Williams]

I read that also Ed. I see it as another case of so-called “engineers” not carrying out comprehensive physical tests upon materials and design, as proof of real working conditions.

Bridges in the USA are a perfect example of this, as disasters waiting to happen. The information is there, warnings are published, but no one listens.      https://tinyurl.com/ngexgaa

 

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Drezha]

Commenting on Exova, I used to work for their other major competitor in the country – BRE. Both firms do the same type of work, though BRE also do a lot of additional environmental stuff, rather than just fire. Testing wise, these have to be kept separate from consultancy, required under UKAS rules. For example, I could never take part in a certified fire test (note the word certified there, as BRE and Exova also carry out non certified testing), just as the testing staff couldn’t get involved in my consultancy work.

Desktop studies are a valid recognised form of meeting the regulations. Normally, the insulation firms will provide a certain make up for a fire test. This system will then go on to then be tested to the required British Standard. Now, architects will come along and ask for (usually a minor) change to that make up that was tested. It may be the change of covering along the front for a different colour or may be an increase in the insulation material. Now, the fire engineer looks at these changes and uses first principles to inform a decision as to whether this is a valid test. As Kingspan say, it is the reputation of the firm that is doing these tests that is put on the line. In terms of the “so called engineers”, I have a degree in Fire and Explosion Engineering, a PhD in the Economics of Fire Protection and I’m (almost) a Charted Member of the Institute of Fire Engineers. I’d say that I’m an engineer. But then I don’t carry out these assessments (I was recently asked, but see below – no point undertaking one). I’ve no doubt there are cowboys out there (there are certainly some interesting fire engineered solutions I’ve had the “privilege” to act as a reviewer for).

However, Greater Manchester FRS have now stated they wont accept any desktop studies now (until further information is released by the inquiry). Which on one hand, is over reaching abuse of their powers (as they can only comment on fire related issues during construction) but is perhaps a sensible approach and enforceable under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (which only applies once the building is occupied). I think at the minute, it would take a brave Approved Inspector/Building Control body to go against their views. My own general view is that standardised testing is there for a reason and I don’t see any huge reason why this shouldn’t be followed – I can see reasons why make ups are changed, but I make issues when doing risk assessments when clients mess with fire doors, so I don’t see why cladding should be different.

In terms of the failing tests, BRE are stating that ” We have developed a test protocol for this work and are currently validating it.” This testing procedure for the flammability of the already installed items is therefore NOT an existing British Standard test. It’s all hush hush, my former colleagues can’t and won’t discuss it with me (for obvious reasons, as some of them are no doubt on the investigation team, having formed a major part of the Lakanal House investigation).

Truth is, if I hadn’t have moved to Manchester, I’d have been working alongside them and whilst it’s perhaps grim to say it, but I think I’d have relished the challenge. Mind, I’m probably fairly risk averse. And I always wanted to join the FRS when I left Uni, but was told they didn’t want me (no fast track, no engineering teams – I’d have had to man the pumps and work my way up). That’s coming back to bite somewhat, though austerity isn’t helping at all. London have a FRS fire engineering team, as do West Mids and Greater Manchester and meeting them is like a breath of fresh air as they have a solid understanding of when it comes to engineering.

Remember to all those criticising the Building Inspectors (both local authority and private) – these guys aren’t experts in fire. They have to sign the building off for all sorts – structure, environmental items, access etc etc (the Approved Documents for Building Regs are A-M I believe).

"Everything looks interesting until you do it. Then you find it’s just another job" - Terry Pratchett

[Ed P]

I cannot comment on the Building Inspector’s relationship with the FRS, but I do know that the Inspectors are grossly overworked.

To the best of my knowledge we have just one Inspector to cover all the applications and inspections involved in a population of about 150,000. They have very little time to do anything except rubber-stamp stuff that is being built to already approved specifications. The days when inspectors would come along and poke around in footings appears to be long gone, and they never do things like check that buildings are actually constructed where they are supposed to go from approved materials. They are now heavily reliant on others such as NHBC to ensure that things are being built to a reasonable standard. I would guess that they are similarly heavily reliant on the expertise of others such as the FRS/Exovar for signing off on things like cladding and fire prevention measures.

It would not surprise me to learn that there are also very few Inspectors in the Rotten Borough of Chelsea.

[Drezha]

Ed P wrote:

It would not surprise me to learn that there are also very few Inspectors in the Rotten Borough of Chelsea.

There are certainly two as I’ve worked with them both in the past. Interestingly, getting anything fire engineered through them was harder than any other London borough. They were very fastidious.

"Everything looks interesting until you do it. Then you find it’s just another job" - Terry Pratchett

[Bob Williams]

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation Drezha, it is good to get the correct information from a knowledgeable source. I think it has demonstrated that I should be more careful in making uninformed comment! I based those comments on information available and meant no disrespect to the work of any organisation or individual.

In other words, I should keep silent when it comes to stuff I know very little about!

EDIT: your last Reply was very interesting.

 

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Dave Rice]

“In other words, I should keep silent when it comes to stuff I know very little about!”

I was involved in making sure the Millennium Bug had as little impact as possible and got so sick of journalists whipping this up, plus the so called “expert” you can always find to back up any position no matter how ludicrous.

We all knew that planes were not going to fall out of the sky or bank accounts cease to work etc. but of course that doesn’t sell stories. Then when nothing happened the people who had made it up blamed the people who had done as lot of work to make sure it didn’t for crying wolf.

With Grenfell I have smelt a classic politicians cover up in the offing since day one and you can see the scapegoats being lined up.

Based on Grenfell the French will be amending their rules & regs within a month. How long will we take? The usual excuses are already being trotted out. Can’t preempt an inquiry or prejudice a criminal investigation blah, blah, waffle. Promises made are being broken, the people are already back to being cattle.

[Drezha]

Bob Williams wrote:

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation Drezha, it is good to get the correct information from a knowledgeable source. I think it has demonstrated that I should be more careful in making uninformed comment! I based those comments on information available and meant no disrespect to the work of any organisation or individual. In other words, I should keep silent when it comes to stuff I know very little about! EDIT: your last Reply was very interesting.

Don’t get me wrong, there are chancers out there and firms that don’t know what they’re doing but I guess that’s the case everywhere. I’ve recently just completed a fire strategy, detailing a building in Liverpool that will be built and the initial fire strategy written for the building was appalling. The contractor stated that 40% of the doors was costing him 90% of the door budget because the original “engineer” just totally went made and over specified everything. Vent systems where they are needed, residential systems in an assembly space and vice versa. Real pigs ear!

"Everything looks interesting until you do it. Then you find it’s just another job" - Terry Pratchett

[Ed P]

“Engineers rarely get into trouble over walls that remaining standing, it is the ones that fall down that give engineers grief!”

There is always a contention between cost and over-design and that is why engineers always fall back on recognized standards and codes. Obviously your Liverpool engineer wasn’t so hot at reading the small print and notations!

I found your earlier remark interesting, and one I would echo and add ‘current standards and codes of practice’ to your comment on testing

” My own general view is that standardised testing is there for a reason and I don’t see any huge reason why this shouldn’t be followed”

This is certainly the case in many *counties with most other aspects of domestic building work. If you ever get involved in making a major extension to your house you may find that the Planners will insist on bringing the whole house up to the latest building regs for Environmental Standards. Strangely, and echoing Grenfell Tower a bit, this did not in my case extend to ensuring that the garage ceiling boards were fire-resistant (the pink ones). They are now!

*I believe that policies on upgrading domestic building stock are applied on a county by county basis and at the moment are dependent on the viewpoints of the County Councillors.

[Richard]

Maybe Drezha will be in a position to comment on one aspect of the standards. I understand that the existing fire standard, EN 13501,  requires only a “single burn” laboratory test of each separate material used in “cladding” operations. The BRE has long considered this to be somewhat lacking; what was needed, was a much more realistic test of how all the materials involved might behave when installed together. With Grenfell the problem is suspected to be a combination of the 6in of combustible Celotex plastic foam insulation behind the facing, sat with a void behind it which, once the plastic was set alight by the fire from a flat, created an updraught. The BRE had a new British standard, BS 8414, they considered should replace EN1305, but EN1305 had come from the EU, making it mandatory. Thus any new British standard could only be a voluntary (and more expensive) over the top option.

Our minister who should have gone to Brussels to press for a much more effective EU standard along British lines was John Prescott. However, the department was more focused on new regulations to improve insulation required under the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings directive. The need to deal with fire risk seems not to have climbed far up the scale.

The makers of Celotex appear to claim that its “product” does comply with that British standard, BS 8414. Its website gives details of its self-certified test, but did that self test match the context in which the product was installed at Grenfell Tower? I understand that the brochure emphasises that its test is valid only when it is compatible with the “end-use system”. As far as I can see the BRE point was that only the combined package as installed against building, with framing and cladding should form part of the BS8414 testing and validation, but that was not mandated under the EU’s EN1305 .

There are other hints of short falls in work standards possibly over such as fire stopping, fire doors, gas works and electrical installations at Camden, (also possibly other locations) and these may have prompted the call for mass evacuations in Camden.

While building standards for high rise buildings do now require sprinklers, there was a limited or possibly no pressure for them to be retro-fitted. While environmental performance issues will dog planning applications for building changes as Ed said,  so far as I know, apart from a few rules on staircases, fire safety issues are not considered a major planning issue. While some of the so called ‘environmental improvements’ may have a payback period that could or will exceed the projected life span of the materials used or building itself. A sprinkler system, with little or no environmental impact other than saving lives, waste, materials and, yes cash is less sexy and has been actively resisted in some cases. I know one person in the States who opted for a bunch of fire extinguishers for the same marginal cost, rather than sprinklers as his state did not (yet) mandate such systems.

Incidentally, fire resistant materials such as domestic doors and plaster board give rather less protection than many suppose and are only intended to give a few more minutes of ‘escape time’ after a fire alarm sounds.

 

[Dave Rice]

I was waiting for the EU to be blamed. Oh, you managed to get a swipe in at Labour too. What about all the responsible politicians since then too?

It doesn’t seem to have stopped the French “In France, in the high-rise towers like Grenfell, we can only use non-flammable materials – they don’t burn, they don’t catch fire.” and they’re now reducing that to 28 metres and expecting to do that within weeks.  http://news.sky.com/story/france-plans-new-cladding-law-after-grenfell-fire-disaster-10930623

“Following the fire, French housing association LMH removed the flammable cladding from other towers despite not being compelled by law at the time to do so.  Damien Guth, the group’s technical director, said: “What we noticed, as well as experts, is that the plastic core inside the cladding was responsible for the rapid spread of fire. “This is what prompted us to replace the cladding on our tower blocks to avoid risk.” The company said it was a matter of ethics.”

Why is France capable of spotting the bloody obvious and doing something about it, yet all we do is call for another inquiry that will take years?

When we get to the bottom of this, if we ever do, it will be a home grown disaster of our own making. I may not have Drezha’s training but it seems obvious to me that cladding a building in flammable material cannot be a good idea.

[Ed P]

The current regulations appear ambiguous and could be dependent on reports from Exovar. See this report by Rockwool (not exactly unbiased however). The Government no longer mandates requirements (as was the  case in the past). The whole onus is now thrown onto the building developers/insurers.

Incidentally Government blame falls on the recent generations of UK politicians who kicked the whole reform into the long grass. link

[Richard]

I said that everyone has a hand in the mud pie. I also said that it is a total top to bottom mess that stretches back into the 1990s, possibly beyond that.

Frankly putting greenwash above all else has been plain stupid. Safety in all its forms has to come top of the damned list. I have had concerns about flammable covering ever since I first saw it on low rise buildings, nailed on with a cement rendered covering. I could never see how that would not end in disaster, my first expectation would be for the render to spall off and the inside to burn, compounding the problems.

Yes, someone should have taken the initiative, including sprinklers and fireproof cladding and all the other things that enquiry will show have been allowed to slip. However, defending the probably civil service error that allowed the standards to slip down as far as they have was not the error or one party it was the whole ruddy shooting match. It is time to shoot the greenwash fox, (hunt it if you must).

Sorry Dave to upset you by a reference to that previous government but in the current feverish highly selectively blame game being played out now, seeking to defend Prescot’s ministry’s actions in regard to the EU’s low standard was a pretty low level for which to aim. Selective blame throwing is the preserve of cheap political charlatans. Or are you suggesting that previous cockups should be excused because they are the bunch you prefer?

While I am on the subject, would I like to see more fire people ‘on the front line? No I would certainly not, the total number of fires has fallen a long way, but the technical issues arising from the fires that do happen have greatly increased as new materials are used, (miss-used?).

However, I would like to see skilled and fully qualified fire prevention officers, armed with powers to enter a building at any time and carry out legally mandated searches for bad practice with a ‘force of law ability’ to enforce change. Clearly , this is most cost effective at the build stage, (including any retrofit), but given the mess that everyone has allowed to develop ever since the carp was built we need to start somewhere

However, before that can ever start to happen can someone please set an absolute standard by which things are measured.

I was given a golden rule when reviewing specifications, which in part and relying on distant partial memory ‘tests must be to standards already defined and any and all tests must be as on the as installed setup and be fully repeatable with the same out turn every time. That did not leave much time or space for a highly subjective interpretation – some suppliers did try to object.

I side with the person who said that with every test now failing it is time to stop testing, and start and stripping. So you see on that point Dave we are in agreement.

However that still leaves the issue of establishing what standard should be applied, completely incombustible might be a good place to start, nothing lower. However, I repeat, before you can specify a standard to use, the standard must exist.

[Richard]

I have just seen a report of what appears to be a solar panel induced fire in London, http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/blaze-rips-through-roof-of-million-pound-london-flats-as-picture-shows-solar-panels-on-fire/ar-BBDzAxy?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=iehp

I wonder what was behind this latest fiasco?

[Author]

Posts