I just spotted this - the drawing on page 3 looks scarily like the Grenfell fire (and the document dates back to 2015)

Yes it does. That fig 3 references BR135 which was 1st published in 1988 so it shows that those in the industry were aware of using correct materials to prevent such mishaps.

So 29 years later, what went wrong?

I've been listening to the statement made by Theresa May in the House of Commons, and the questions she was asked and (barely) answered - enquiry this, investigation that, testing the other.

The biggest question seems to be whether flammable cladding was permitted under building regulations.

If if was forbidden, then an awful lot of builders and building inspectors will be passing through the courts in the coming months and years.

If it was (and still is) permitted, then the Houses of Parliament should be spending their time passing a one-clause bill 'for the avoidance of doubt' saying that no flammable panel should be attached to a building higher than xx metres after, say, 12 noon today.

In the intervening years the focus (wrongly in my book) moved from fire safety to thermal performance.
This changed removed a lot of strict "thou shall" / "thou shall not" type rules with "assess and decide". We've seen this in other industries where someone has done an assessment using a certain parameter set (say material and dimension); later on someone has extended one of the parameters (say height) a little bit and said "it must be OK because its only a small change". This is has then been repeated a few times, each time using the most recent extended parameter instead of the base parameter. Eventually the difference between the initial parameter set (which was properly assessed, and was "safe") and that set in use is so large that line between "safe" and "not safe" has been crossed without anyone noticing.
Thus, in the case of exterior cladding systems on buildings we have a system that was probably OK for a two story house, may be OK on a three or four story house, is now being used on a twenty four story block of flats and is proven to be "not safe", indeed downright dangerous. the understandable reaction is to remove the system from every building, whereas the "break point" should be properly determined (and that will require testing - which takes time) - this breakpoint MAY "zero floors", or MAY be something greater. Then update the Building Regulations to suit, ENFORCE the regulations, giving NO wiggle room to those that would cut corners and costs.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

High rise Cladding Combustible

Seems like no one knows what type of insulation that was really used...

One of the hospitals which has looked after patients, King's College Hospital, confirmed it had treated three people with an antidote to cyanide poisoning.
However, the hospital has not yet confirmed if they were suffering from that poisoning - it said that giving the antidote may have been precautionary.
A study by the University of Central Lancashire has shown that hydrogen cyanide is produced when various building insulation materials catch fire, including the type used on Grenfell Tower.

Did they use polyisocyanurate or PE?

So, my one clause bill, to become effective today, should specify "not taller than [last known safe height]".

After extended testing, maybe that could be relaxed, but the basic principle must be "build within known safety standards", not to take (cheap) advantage of loopholes and uncertainty.

News coming in as I type: Camden council (another of the 33 independent boroughs making up Greater London) has found that a contractor has used materials not in accordance with the contract specification, and is taking urgent legal advice. That sounds like a good start.

London needs a single unified democratic body to set common standards across the city. We could call it the, ooh, 'Greater London Council'?

Did they use polyisocyanurate or PE?

They possibly used polyisocyanurate insulation behind a choice of PE or FR cladding.

The answer is "both". PE is used in the outer skin, and polyisocyanurate in the insulation.
With the sort of cladding system you cannot consider one part on its own, you have to consider the whole system. Hence the 2015 guidance from the insulation manufacturer which shows the use of both a fire resistant insulation and a fire resistant decorative layer over that. Use one wrong material and you will degrade the protection, possibly to the point of uselessness. In this case it would appear that the PE in the outer shell system provided a good source of ignition for the polyisocyanurate insulation and, as they say, "the rest is history". When polyisocyanurate burns it releases Hydrogen Cyanide among other toxins.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Sad :-(

It seems Courtesy, Empathy & Common Sense are dying breeds

Whatever you choose.
It will take time:(

The "Bloody Sunday" inquiry into the deaths of 13 people during the troubles in Northern Ireland took 12 years and cost around £200m - though some estimates put the figure far higher.

Whatever you choose.
It will take time:(

The "Bloody Sunday" inquiry into the deaths of 13 people during the troubles in Northern Ireland took 12 years and cost around £200m - though some estimates put the figure far higher.

And wasn't even established until 1998, 26 years after the events of 30 January 1972. It took a change of Government in 1997 even to get it started.

Big question for me: how did the fire cross from the alleged source - failed fridge/freezer in a fourth floor flat - to the cladding/insulation on the outside of the building?

But was it?

The police have now confirmed on the record that the fire started in a Hotpoint FF175BP fridge-freezer, not previously the subject of a safety recall. The manufacturers have been notified.

Immediate evacuation of five tower blocks in Camden, North London, ordered at 8:30 pm Friday night, due to defective (non fire retardant) cladding and other concerns not yet revealed. Over 800 residential units affected.

Just read this story in the local rag

Suffolk suppliers of insulation used in the £8.6million refurbishment of Grenfell Tower say it will no longer be supplied for cladding on high-rise buildings.

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/suffolk-firm-celotex-based-in-hadleigh-halts-supplies-of-insulation-used-in-grenfell-tower-cladding-1-5076491

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)

BBC - Cladding fire tests failed by 27 high-rise blocks
But after very quick scan I couldn't see where these blocks are located.

---

I'm worried - and I hope councillors and council officers are worried - by those

... other concerns not yet revealed.

Apparently the council held a meeting with tenants on Thursday, at which the tenants voiced concerns which the council leaders weren't previously aware of. Then, the council and the fire brigade spent Friday jointly looking into those concerns, and at the end of the day decided that the blocks couldn't be made safe enough for overnight residence that night - they considered parking fire appliances right beside the doors, but they couldn't risk taking that many appliances away from the general emergency pool for London.

The new concerns appear to relate to inadequate fire doors, and unprotected gas pipes. If those problems have been visible to, and known by, tenants for 10 years since the blocks were refurbished, how the heck didn't the council know about them?

BBC - Cladding fire tests failed by 27 high-rise blocks
But after very quick scan I couldn't see where these blocks are located.

The local authority areas with buildings that failed tests include Manchester, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Hounslow, Brent and Camden.

The Government has said it is not identifying other areas until residents have been notified, so as not to cause undue concern.

BBC - Cladding fire tests failed by 27 high-rise blocks
But after very quick scan I couldn't see where these blocks are located.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcots_Estate

On 22 June 2017, following the Grenfell Tower fire, Camden Council said that it would remove similar outer cladding panels that were added to the five blocks in a 2006 refurbishment by the same firms who renovated Grenfell Tower.[5] However, Camden Council stated that the insulation used "significantly differs" from that on Grenfell Tower, as it included "fire-resistant Rockwool insulation designed to prevent the spread of fire and fire-resistant sealant between floors, designed to stop a high-intensity flat fire from spreading to neighbouring flats".[5] On 23 June, Camden Council stated that 800 homes in the five tower blocks were being evacuated in order to undertake "urgent fire safety works".[6] On 24 June, 83 people were refusing to leave, and council leader Georgia Gould‎ said this would "become a matter for the fire services".

Is there anyone who knows something that lead to this tragedy?
What a mess:(

(Sarcasm mode on)
Yep, probably in 12 years or so when the inquiry actually gets completed & published.
(Sarcasm mode off)

Oops
(Sarcasm mode back on)
Somewhere in the reports linked in this thread there was a couple of comments by the councils that cladding is energy efficient & aesthetically pleasing.

WE know. Highly efficient at producing energy.
NOT very aesthetically pleasing now is it?
(Sarcasm mode off)