Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

London Fire and Aftermath RIP

Options
1343537394046

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnKiukWEI0A

    Here is a video of cladding fire in Baku, Azerbaijan from 2015. It's lethal. Goes up in less than a minute.
    The authorities began removing this cladding from building over two years ago, in what is quite frankly a far less civilised country than the UK in terms of corruption, human rights, health and safety.

    "A day after more than a dozen people were killed in a massive fire in a Baku high-rise, angry residents are calling on the government to strip city buildings of flammable Styrofoam facing installed as part of a "beautification" scheme aimed at boosting Azerbaijan's global profile.

    In some Baku districts, city authorities eager to avoid public unrest ordered workers to begin the process of removing the polyurethane panels from the concrete hulls of aging buildings. But elsewhere, private residents took matter into their own hands, using hammers and sometimes just their fingers to chop off chunks of the crumbly material surrounding their apartment windows and ground-floor walls."

    It will have to come off in London too

    It's absolute madness that the stuff was put on and leaving a chimney between cladding and insulation


  • Registered Users Posts: 964 ✭✭✭123shooter


    JupiterKid wrote: »
    Actually, there was quite a lot of plastic in household products and even in aspects of construction by the mid 1970s.

    Not what i remember. Designed in late 60's and completed 74 and architects wonder material at the time was concrete.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    Another interesting point as regards the "perfect storm" of conditions: You'll notice on before pictures of Grenfell Tower than each facade had 4 concrete fluted columns.
    "Fluted" means those ridges and grooves you see on Greek and Roman columns. Nothing wrong with it in the original design, but once flammable cladding is put over it, it creates a "chimney effect" with flames and oxygen feeding the fire from behind.

    This is one of the earliest videos of the Grenfell Fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UULdMYCphSE
    You'll notice the flames are running up and down these concrete columns, it spreads laterally too, but it seems these columns are feeding it the most.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    Is there any clarity on the legality of the PE cladding since Hammond made his statement?

    There will be a lot of focus on the installation method too especially if it transpires the cladding complied with building regs.

    The government will be eager to deflect attention from their inaction on fire safety since the Lakanale report.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Is there any clarity on the legality of the PE cladding since Hammond made his statement?

    There will be a lot of focus on the installation method too especially if it transpires the cladding complied with building regs.

    The government will be eager to deflect attention from their inaction on fire safety since the Lakanale report.

    The Government have called a public inquiry have they not?. There is no deflecting or hiding from that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    The Government have called a public inquiry have they not?. There is no deflecting or hiding from that.


    are you sure about that? Public enquiries only have the power that the government decides to give them. This needs a coroners inquest not an inquiry.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    Accurately predicts what transpired..

    http://www.probyn-miers.com/perspective/2016/02/fire-risks-from-external-cladding-panels-perspective-from-the-uk/

    3.2 Fire breakout

    Following the initiation of a fire inside the building, if no intervention occurs, the fire may develop to flashover and break out from the room of origin through a window opening or doorway … Flames breaking out of a building from a post-flashover fire will typically extend 2m above the top of the opening prior to any involvement of the external face, and this is therefore independent of the material used to construct the outer face of the building envelope …

    3.3 Interaction with the external envelope

    It is at this stage of the fire scenario that the fire performance of the complete external cladding system, including any fire barriers, is critically important. Once flames begin to impinge upon the external fabric of the building, from either an internal or an external source, there is the potential for the external cladding system to become involved, and to contribute to the external fire spread up the building by the following routes.

    3.3.1 Surface propagation

    The reaction to fire characteristics of the materials used within the external cladding system will influence the rate of fire spread up the building envelope by way of the surface of the external cladding system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    http://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Certifications%20page_042014.pdf


    "Reynobond is a fully tested product, with building-code approvals throughout the world. It is available with either a Polyethylene (PE) core
    or a Fire Resistant (FR) core. "


    It comes with loads of EU safety certs so I doubt its illegal. I've no idea where Hammond got that from or why he said it.

    This link has info on their Reynobonds fire safety:
    http://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Our%20fire%20solutions_BR36EN_012017.pdf

    "When conceiving a building, it is crucial
    to choose the adapted products in order
    to avoid the fire to spread to the whole
    building. Especially when it comes to
    facades and roofs, the fire can spread
    extremely rapidly."

    " as soon as the building is
    higher than the firefighters’ ladders, it has
    to be conceived with an incombustible
    material."

    This where it states that Reynobond PE up to 10m, reynobond FR 10 -30m, Reynobond A2 over 30m.
    Reynobond FR has a 'B' rated fire safey cert, Reynobond A2 has an 'A2' fire safey cert, both according to European fire
    certification EN 13501-1 . I havent managed to find Reynobond PEs rating (the cladding used on Grenfell, but obviously its lower than the other two.

    This seems to be stated as a recommendation as opposed to a regulation. Id imagine teams of lawyers representing various parties are pouring over this type of documentation now.

    So TMO managed the refurbishment, council funded it and approved the planning, Rydon Construction were the main contractors, some other contractors did the facade. yada yada yada


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    http://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Certifications%20page_042014.pdf


    "Reynobond is a fully tested product, with building-code approvals throughout the world. It is available with either a Polyethylene (PE) core
    or a Fire Resistant (FR) core. "


    It comes with loads of EU safety certs so I doubt its illegal. I've no idea where Hammond got that from or why he said it.

    This link has info on their Reynobonds fire safety:
    http://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Our%20fire%20solutions_BR36EN_012017.pdf

    "When conceiving a building, it is crucial
    to choose the adapted products in order
    to avoid the fire to spread to the whole
    building. Especially when it comes to
    facades and roofs, the fire can spread
    extremely rapidly."

    " as soon as the building is
    higher than the firefighters’ ladders, it has
    to be conceived with an incombustible
    material."

    This where it states that Reynobond PE up to 10m, reynobond FR 10 -30m, Reynobond A2 over 30m.
    Reynobond FR has a 'B' rated fire safey cert, Reynobond A2 has an 'A2' fire safey cert, both according to European fire
    certification EN 13501-1 . I havent managed to find Reynobond PEs rating (the cladding used on Grenfell, but obviously its lower than the other two.

    This seems to be stated as a recommendation as opposed to a regulation. Id imagine teams of lawyers representing various parties are pouring over this type of documentation now.

    So TMO managed the refurbishment, council funded it and approved the planning, Rydon Construction were the main contractors, some other contractors did the facade. yada yada yada

    I think it will transpire that the panels were legal.

    I believe the installers will be done on the actual installation method and fire barriers etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    are you sure about that? Public enquiries only have the power that the government decides to give them. This needs a coroners inquest not an inquiry.

    the coroner will decide if they were unlawfully killed etc and then has to wait for the criminal enquiry to take place. A Public inquiry can get to what actually happened, expecially if the victims have full legal representation, which Theresa May has promised to fund.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/19/grenfell-tower-tragedy-public-inquiry-inquest-fire-victims


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    the coroner will decide if they were unlawfully killed etc and then has to wait for the criminal enquiry to take place. A Public inquiry can get to what actually happened, expecially if the victims have full legal representation, which Theresa May has promised to fund.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/19/grenfell-tower-tragedy-public-inquiry-inquest-fire-victims

    i think underestimate the powers of the coroner.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    i think underestimate the powers of the coroner.

    I'm never too sure which way is best, but the article in the Grauniad seemed convincing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    the coroner will decide if they were unlawfully killed etc and then has to wait for the criminal enquiry to take place. A Public inquiry can get to what actually happened, expecially if the victims have full legal representation, which Theresa May has promised to fund.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/19/grenfell-tower-tragedy-public-inquiry-inquest-fire-victims

    I'm not sure if it is just the way you worded that, but the coroner does not decide one way or another and then await any criminal investigation. If there is an investigation any inquest must be adjourned until the investigation is completed. The coroners inquest must not be inconsistent with the findings of the criminal investigation.

    Also to note it would generally be a coroners jury as opposed to the coronor themselves who would decide on lawful/unlawful etc in this type of case where public health and safety is an issue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    GM228 wrote: »
    I'm not sure if it is just the way you worded that, but the coroner does not decide one way or another and then await any criminal investigation. If there is an investigation any inquest must be adjourned until the investigation is completed. The coroners inquest must not be inconsistent with the findings of the criminal investigation.

    Also to note it would generally be a coroners jury as opposed to the coronor themselves who would decide on lawful/unlawful etc in this type of case where public health and safety is an issue.

    I misunderstood the process then.

    I presume then, that an inquiry can happen quicker than an inquest?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    I misunderstood the process then.

    I presume then, that an inquiry can happen quicker than an inquest?

    An inquest is a public inquiry by a coroner, an inquiry is a public inquiry by a judge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I misunderstood the process then.

    I presume then, that an inquiry can happen quicker than an inquest?


    an inquiry could drag on for years. once a coroners inquest starts it is a matter of weeks not years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    GM228 wrote: »
    An inquest is a public inquiry.


    by public inquiry he means a judge led inquiry setup by the government and given its terms of reference by the same government.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    The Terms of reference may be framed narrowly to let the government off the hook


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    an inquiry could drag on for years. once a coroners inquest starts it is a matter of weeks not years.

    But the benefit of an inquiry is unlike an inquest it can apportion blame.


  • Registered Users Posts: 964 ✭✭✭123shooter


    The Terms of reference may be framed narrowly to let the government off the hook

    Can I ask why you apportion blame without any proof but just assumptions?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    GM228 wrote: »
    But the benefit of an inquiry is unlike an inquest it can apportion blame.

    it can but given the history of public inquiries it is unlikely to. an inquest just establishes facts and i think that is where they should start


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,521 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    An inquest may open and adjourn, pending the ongoing inquires.

    This might come down to, what standing have a manufacturers recommendations.

    Know of another situation in Ireland, where a product is installed, where the manufacturer specifically says it should not be installed. Company said it did its own tests and 'consultant' signed off on it. All again for a few euro, that the 'consultant' probably got anyway.

    Not much use putting fire retarding doors of 30 or 60 mins in a building if you put gas pipes in the stairwell and give the fire an alternative route up the outside of the building.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    123shooter wrote: »
    Can I ask why you apportion blame without any proof but just assumptions?

    The proof is that the UK government failed to implement changes to building regulations since 2013.

    The PE panels are legal on high rise and low rise and shouldn't have been.

    The government will no doubt want to narrow the focus to the installation and officials involved in signing off on the project.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    GM228 wrote: »
    An inquest is a public inquiry by a coroner, an inquiry is a public inquiry by a judge.

    I'm aware of that, What I guess I was uncertain of, is the relationship with a formal police investigation.
    GM228 wrote: »
    But the benefit of an inquiry is unlike an inquest it can apportion blame.

    And where there is likely to be blame in more than one area, with some parties being at fault, but not criminally negligent, can help people better understand what actually went wrong?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,521 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Yes any Govn't should get pilloried for inadequate regs or policing of same.

    In this case, it will look like it will be about, what engineer/consultant signed off on the product that clearly was to be installed, overriding the manufacturer's recommendations. No professional should do that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Terms of reference may be framed narrowly to let the government off the hook

    which is where the victims legal representatives will be important. I presume they will be able to influence and potentially appeal against any terms of reference they are not happy with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 964 ✭✭✭123shooter


    The proof is that the UK government failed to implement changes to building regulations since 2013.

    The PE panels are legal on high rise and low rise and shouldn't have been.

    The government will no doubt want to narrow the focus to the installation and officials involved in signing off on the project.

    Were they supposed to change building regs after that date?

    Regardless of ??? How could the government stop the use of the panels. If they are available to be used then unless rejected after and during installation then if someone fits them they are fitted.

    I would have thought that the contractor would work to a spec which would have several stages of inspection as the installation continues..........non of this would be government it would be those commissioned to oversee the job by most likely the owners or council........I assume.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭tara73


    The proof is that the UK government failed to implement changes to building regulations since 2013.

    The PE panels are legal on high rise and low rise and shouldn't have been.

    The government will no doubt want to narrow the focus to the installation and officials involved in signing off on the project.

    this is what will happen. if the architects don't have a piece of paper, where the council signed off on the flammable cladding, their heads will role. maybe that of the construction company, Rydon, or their subcontractors, too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tara73 wrote: »
    this is what will happen. if the architects don't have a peace of paper, where the council signed off on the flammable cladding, their heads will role. maybe that of the construction company, Rydon, or their subcontractors, too.

    woah, so many assumptions in one post. You are really desperate to hang the council for this aren't you?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,521 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Well, its simple, who authorised the use of this cladding on a high rise building, contrary to the manufacturers recommendations.
    That's the question.
    Who then comes under scrutiny, is neither here nor there.


Advertisement