Grenfell Tower block disaster

Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
There was a letter in the DT from a former district inspector - a role we seem no longer to have - and he was saying that they considered two things when buildings were being erected: first, it mustn't fall down, and second, it mustn't catch fire. After those two they were told to use 'their common sense'! I wonder where in the deep recesses of common sense lies the notion that if there's a fire you stay in your flat!
Click to expand...


The advice is because the flats are concrete and have fire doors so in theory a fire in a flat will be contained to a small area and easily managable and quickly put out, but it seems (not confirmed mind) that sticking a load of flamible plastic on the concrete exterior has negated that.

It's also worrying that it was suggested by an ex fire fighter that no fire service in the country has any fire engines thats hydrolic ladders reach more than 32 meters (11 stories in a building).
Now with many high rises and other new builds in cities being 30 story+ is that not a worry, I admit I don't know, maybe someone does on here.
 
Last edited:
There was an interview on radio this morning that suggested that where people are unaccounted for, no-one has sat down with relatives, gone through what is known about their missing (where they were, phone calls etc) and helped them understand what the reality might be. If that's so, that's unacceptable, even if people are in denial. There was no hint that the broadcaster (Radio 4) had tried to establish if it was so.
 
Last edited:
manctheknife said:
The internal fire spread was just as alarming though.
Click to expand...
It was, but maybe its easy to understand why, because it was a pretty warm night, so people will have had their windows open (I know we did that night, and I'm only 30 miles away, and even in a more rural area it was a warm night especially inside). The speed it spread through the building at that time of night, many people wouldn't have known the danger of an open window, and only a bit of burning debris inside would start a fire internally, so the fire probably entered many flats quite quickly.
 
manctheknife said:
If the fire stopping is in place on the slab levels there can be no chimney. Also rainscreen cladding has open horizontal joints which would expel smoke and the whole wall construction is capped at the top. Have designed many on both new and refurbished towers,,! Our whole office spent the last few days checking our specs for buildings going back 10 years....whatever happened here, will hit construction hard....although IMO the regs are sound. Procurement and building practice will be shaken down.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, cheers.
 
Vic said:
Nowt to do with my question. Or anything possibly!

Anyway I think I've found my answer. It was easier to find than I thought.

The air gap is between the insulation and the outer skin which is there only to keep rain off the insulation. But it should have vertical and horizontal compartments so it should not act as a funnel. Next question - for anyone who actually knows - is whether that means the funnel theory is nonsense. As I posted a couple of days ago, I think the coanda effect means fire scrolls up a building. The cladding caught fire but the fire would spread up anyway.

https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/rainscreen-cladding-letting-air-in-to-keep-rain-out


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_effect

http://www.highrisefirefighting.co.uk/physics.html
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing that with us
 
Whatever information the govt release about the cause of the fire and this horrible loss of life is going to be picked over and after the Hillsborough shenanigans with inquiry after inquiry I don't believe many people have that much faith in the system any more. Something went wrong whether it was cost cutting bad design or unsafe building regs but it's going to take ages to come out into the open, this is going to breed theories about a cover up.
 
manctheknife said:
Spot on mate.
The internal fire spread was just as alarming though. As a 70,s tower I would have expected some asbestos spray coats to communal slab areas...maybe it was removed?
However something went horribly wrong with the stair and core protection and strategy...
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if the fire inspection reveals fire doors on the floor decks were propped open.
 
I haven't read the whole thread so it could have been mentioned before but surely, it is also the politics surrounding this tragedy that need to be looked at in this enquiry. Were the regulations watered down that enabled landlords to get away with renting out properties that were not as safe as they could have been. What was the role of lobbyists in restricting legislation and the role of governments in pandering to money before welfare, thereby putting lives at risk. These are all questions that need to be answered as well as any specific questions of oversight or neglect that may be relevant to the Grenfell flats.
 
Blue Llama said:
It will be interesting to see if the fire inspection reveals fire doors on the floor decks were propped open.
Click to expand...

Possibly they would have been, as people prop corridoor doors open all the time, really a residential block like that should have magni-lock doors that automatically close upon a fire so they can be left open in stuffier areas, but then it seems the fire systems were inadequate.

On another note when Japan had the 2001 earthquake displacing 43000 people they rehoused all within 3 days to 2 weeks in prefabricated temperary homes, why we don't have such measures, if not in place now being acted upon by the local council or government, and if we do why are they not speaking to people or saying what they are gonna do to rehouse people in the coming days to help stem some of the anger.
 
Last edited:
Bilboblue said:
Actually in a lot of buildings it could be.

I was watching the news the other day and they said three or four floors in this building were not occupied, set aside, which usually means for plantrooms, heating, chilled water, gas etc. It would be easy to install sprinkler systems to this type of building.

For buildings with full occupancy, I guess it would have to entail vacating certain flats, or even whole floors to install these systems.

Also, booster pumps can be fitted to each floor for sprinkler systems, although you would probably have to have many inlets into the building so they can run off different circuits, much like back-up systems for electrical circuits.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt if any existing UK high rise building could take the weight of retrofitted water tanks to deliver enough water to allow people to escape. 1 cubic foot of water weighs 62.43 lbs. A small bedroom 10 x 20 x 8 = 1600 cubic feet = 101.488 lbs or 45.8 metric tonnes. Each flat wiuld be at least 11 times that with about 20 flats per floor is would be 10.076 tonnes.
Now I know sprinklers only operate in areas where one of the bulbs breaks but to deliver better fire protection than what "passive" delivers they would have to operate in a large chunk of the building.
 
Last edited:
goalmole said:
Someone posted earlier in this thread that the more expensive, less flammable cladding had been rejected in favour of the less expensive, more flammable one. The more expensive one costing a whole £2 a metre more than the cheaper one that was chosen. I wonder who went for the cheaper option, the contactor or the owners.
Click to expand...
The less flammable polyurethane cladding would still have burnt. More slowly perhaps but it would still have burnt - though more lives may have been saved
Cladding must be fire proof (e.g. rock wool as per the blocks of flats in West Bromwich). How building regs didn't mandate this is simply beyond me.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
There was a letter in the DT from a former district inspector - a role we seem no longer to have - and he was saying that they considered two things when buildings were being erected: first, it mustn't fall down, and second, it mustn't catch fire. After those two they were told to use 'their common sense'! I wonder where in the deep recesses of common sense lies the notion that if there's a fire you stay in your flat!
Click to expand...
Done away with in 2006 - in favour of self assesment and paper based assesment reviews.
High density populated buildings need inspecting during construction or modification!
IMO, this - along with deficent building regs -more than anything resulted in the lives lost at Grenfel Tower.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
It assumes the fire service will get there promptly and put the fire out (a political issue with cuts meaning response times are slower).

It means you haven't got hundreds of people going down stairwells with firefighters trying to go up.

If they stay put they will keep the door shut. If they leave some will leave doors open.

Someone did say they'd seen flames outside and opened the window to get a better look!

It's one of those conundrums. Risk of injury and even panic if everyone leaves and, inevitably smoke in the stairwell when the firefighters enter the flat with the fire. Stay put may (on the statistical balance of risk) still be best advice.

Having two stairwells may revert to the norm - I think it only changed because, it seems awful to say, buildings became more fire resistant.
Click to expand...

Stairwells should be protected by two doors with a small landing inbetween. Stairwells on high rise buikdings need to be protected by fire curtains behind the outer door that are deployed when evacuation is required. This would stop most of the smoke getting into stairwells.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Say what you will about the Yanks and their society being in thrall to rapacious capitalism, but on certain public policy issues, such as building codes, they are strict as fuck. Far stricter than us I'll wager.
Click to expand...

Probably born out of the fear of real action as a consequence of failure with such a litigious society and also law makers that act quite swiftly compared with ours - no kicking stuff off into the long grass for 6 or 7 years whilst an enquiry deliberates and reports
 
BlueAnorak said:
The less flammable polyurethane cladding would still have burnt. More slowly perhaps but it would still have burnt - though more lives may have been saved
Cladding must be fire proof (e.g. rock wool as per the blocks of flats in West Bromwich). How building regs didn't mandate this is simply beyond me.
Click to expand...
It's what happens when money is your god and people don't matter anymore.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Probably born out of the fear of real action as a consequence of failure with such a litigious society and also law makers that act quite swiftly compared with ours - no kicking stuff off into the long grass for 6 or 7 years whilst an enquiry deliberates and reports
Click to expand...
Good points. It's the same in relation to financial fraud within institutions. They are much less hesitant to slap the cuffs on white collar criminals within the banking system, for example. IIRC, not a single person in the U.K. was prosecuted in association with the credit crunch, which is staggering, as fraud was being committed on an industrial scale imo.
 
SWP's back said:
I've not read every page but is the "gap created a chimney effect" now discernibly true or just repeated because the talking head mentioned that it can happen during the early morning coverage?
Click to expand...
This one is true. The cladding burns/melts away leaving a gap between the outer aluminium and the wall. Once a gap is present between one window opening and the one above it it acts as a chimney and heat and flame is sucked up to the next floor. Eventually the aluminium forming the outter cover of the melts and burns creating massively high temperatures at the bottom of the chimney. The whole of the building cladding for 6 or 7 floors would probably have been alight in 20 mins.
http://www.chimneys.com/articles/how-chimneys-work-draft
 
m7mcfc said:
I watched Charlie Stayt BBC News go to town on the MP Sajid Javid yesterday, he went Paxman on him I was impressed. We need more of them.
Click to expand...
I thought Javid, my MP put up quite a good response. Not that I voted for him, but pretty impressive nonetheless. He actually tried to answer questuons begore being interupted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top