I may sound stupid here but surely someone has to ask why there is a choice in the first place?
Why is there a more flammable option?
Despite being more flammable, does it meet the regulations? If so and the cladding is at fault then the issue is with the regulations rather than the contractor surely?
Nowt to do with my question. Or anything possibly!The RATE of airloss will be lowered using the cladding, not removed completely. If you reduce the amount of air loss you reduce the amount of energy you need to heat that air inside the property
It worries me that a mob is on the streets being focussed on local and national politicians. They appear to have 3 grievances - No information about the missing, lack of action by authorities and their mind is made up about the cause. As we found in Manchester the police are not going to say x number of people are missing but they must be dead. What did they want? The police to make something up just to have a statement to make? Not sure about any lack of action you would have to be there to see the difficulties. It was obvious to see that the cladding was an issue but focussing in on any one cause before any investigation is taking us back to 17th century mob panic. What about other potential factors that could have been instrumental in the very rapid spread of the fire. Final point where were those bullhorns from that several of the mob had? Not just something you have in the cupboard under the stairs or you pop down to Tesco to buy.I've never really liked any of our prime ministers, especially may. The shouting at her was a bit harsh, she got labelled a murderer by a few people. Pointing the blame at one person puzzles me.
There's hundreds of new buildings clad in this shit over here, although it has since been banned. @SWP's back is spot on when he questions why there is even a choice in the first place? What possible justification can there be for using plastic insulation cladding on ANY building, regardless of its height or use? Particularly as the price differential is so small.It's not just old buildings being clad is it though? There's a lot of new buildings clad as well.
It worries me that a mob is on the streets being focussed on local and national politicians. They appear to have 3 grievances - No information about the missing, lack of action by authorities and their mind is made up about the cause. As we found in Manchester the police are not going to say x number of people are missing but they must be dead. What did they want? The police to make something up just to have a statement to make? Not sure about any lack of action you would have to be there to see the difficulties. It was obvious to see that the cladding was an issue but focussing in on any one cause before any investigation is taking us back to 17th century mob panic. What about other potential factors that could have been instrumental in the very rapid spread of the fire. Final point where were those bullhorns from that several of the mob had? Not just something you have in the cupboard under the stairs or you pop down to Tesco to buy.
The air gap has to be there for the rainscreen panels to work. It expels moisture back out through the horizontal joints in the panels. If the insulation is fixed back to the structure then it will have a membrane on its external face for further damp protection. The panels may be either single skin or double with insulation sandwiched between. There should be fire stopping at every floor level across the whole cavity and tightly wedged, this should be sealed with fire foam. If the system is fitted correctly there is no funnel or chimney or vacuum effect. All panels should have a class 0 flame spread finish.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
It assumes the fire service will get there promptly and put the fire out (a political issue with cuts meaning response times are slower).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!
Grenfell Tower had not been checked for fire safety for 18 months, data released by Kensington and Chelsea Council under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act shows.
The last fire risk assessment for the building, which went up in flames in the early hours of this morning, took place in December 2015.
This is believed to be shortly after a major refurbishment project which involved the addition of aluminium external wall cladding commenced, but before it completed. Eyewitnesses have said this cladding burned during the fire, contributing to the spread of the blaze.
The refurbishment also involved the temporary removal of fire protections from between the floors of the building.
http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/7020461.article?mobilesite=enabled
The organisation managing Grenfell Tower appointed a company to carry out its fire risk assessments at the “most competitive price” in 2010, board papers reveal.
The papers, which detail of board meetings of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), show the organisation settled on a consultancy which “was willing to challenge the fire brigade on our behalf if he considered their requirements to be excessive”.
http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/7020510.article?mobilesite=enabled
EU can only regulate what the component countries are willing to regulate.If Germany supposedly banned this cladding why was the rest of Europe still using it. European community quite happy to standardise carrot sizes and shapes but comes to something critical and affecting lives , seemingly nothing.
Could be 100 dead. Total disaster of events
thank you, that sounds like someone who really knows.The air gap has to be there for the rainscreen panels to work. It expels moisture back out through the horizontal joints in the panels. If the insulation is fixed back to the structure then it will have a membrane on its external face for further damp protection. The panels may be either single skin or double with insulation sandwiched between. There should be fire stopping at every floor level across the whole cavity and tightly wedged, this should be sealed with fire foam. If the system is fitted correctly there is no funnel or chimney or vacuum effect. All panels should have a class 0 flame spread finish.
It's only like red bull is banned in France (or was) but not in the U.K. or Germany.If Germany supposedly banned this cladding why was the rest of Europe still using it. European community quite happy to standardise carrot sizes and shapes but comes to something critical and affecting lives , seemingly nothing.
Could be 100 dead. Total disaster of events
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?thank you, that sounds like someone who really knows.
If Germany supposedly banned this cladding why was the rest of Europe still using it. European community quite happy to standardise carrot sizes and shapes but comes to something critical and affecting lives , seemingly nothing.
Could be 100 dead. Total disaster of events
The cladding isn't about aesthetics, its about improving living conditions, these buildings went up in the 50/60/70's, and were often dreadfully built places, with little or no insulation, and leaked and/or suffered dreadful condensation/damp, often with no central heating. The cladding is added to improve the water proofing of the building, as well as the insulation, making them cheaper to heat for residents, and getting rid of the damp they often suffered from, if the aesthetics can be improved then all the better.For a few years, I was on the board of a community housing trust which also undertook a major refurbishment programme. Improving the appearence of buildings was definitely an objective of the programme, although by no means the main one. The accepted view was that improving the appearence of the buildings would make them more appealing to residents and potential residents, increase occupancy rates, reduce vandalism etc. There weren't any wealthy properties near our flats and houses so obviously I can't comment on whether that had a disproportionate influence on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.
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.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?
It's only like red bull is banned in France (or was) but not in the U.K. or Germany.
If it's dangerous for the French then surely is dangerous for everyone?
Spot on mate.The cladding isn't about aesthetics, its about improving living conditions, these buildings went up in the 50/60/70's, and were often dreadfully built places, with little or no insulation, and leaked and/or suffered dreadful condensation/damp, often with no central heating. The cladding is added to improve the water proofing of the building, as well as the insulation, making them cheaper to heat for residents, and getting rid of the damp they often suffered from, if the aesthetics can be improved then all the better.
Yes landlords will have tried to make them cheaper to do, but what might be more important here is - was the cladding fitted in accordance with the instructions ? From what I understand, there has to be a gap between the concrete and the building, to prevent condensation/damp being a continuing issue, but there should be something to prevent fire spreading, if this is missing, then the immediate FB investigation will find that, and proper blame can be apportioned.
So was it fitted in accordance with the manufacturers instructions ? If so then did it meet the current safety regulations, if the answer is yes, then are the manufacturers instructions and/or the safety regulations fit for purpose ? These questions need to be answered quickly, because many many other buildings might be affected, and so thousands of other people are possibly at risk of a similar tragedy.