Building Cladding

[Frontstep]

I have been watching TV pictures of cladding being removed from the many affected buildings and a maybe misplaced thought came to mind.
Why not heavily spray the exposed insulation material with a fire retardant and put the cladding back ?

The insulation media would appear to be a perfect medium to absorb the retardant in many of the installations I have seen.

 

[Xtractorfan]

There is the chimney effect as well with the air gaps between the sheets, plus the cyanide gas given off by the insulation when it burnt. So too many risk factors to ensure complete safety.
I am just wondering how many prefabs will be dotted around the UK when the metal part of the cladding is scrapped. .

 

[davemercedes]

Here's a thought then - can they legally dispose of it with a cyanide gas product inside it?

You can't even throw away asbestos sheets etc at the local dump these days without packing them in special thick/labelled bags (available from the dump, so a minimum of two trips) and in our area (and down in Glos where our daughter lives), you need to take it to the dump when the "asbestos bloke" is in because he has to check and lock it away until it's collected - presumably by people wearing anti-hazard uniform etc. Yes, I know it's necessary...

- But what's the procedure for this cladding? A bonfire perhaps?

 

[LostKiwi]

The plastic inside the cladding is an isocyanurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyisocyanurate

Hydrogen cyanide is only released when the plastic insulation layer is burnt. A bonfire would be the worst possible disposal method!

 

[davemercedes]

The plastic inside the cladding is an isocyanurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyisocyanurate

Hydrogen cyanide is only released when the plastic insulation layer is burnt. A bonfire would be the worst possible disposal method!

Ah okay. In that case to maintain public safety as we have so far, the bonfire is the way to go then!

 

[Xtractorfan]

A bonfire on the continent when we Brexit. With Farage sent over to light it.

 

[Westheath]

jeeeez ......... from cladding to Brexit in 6 posts

 

[davemercedes]

jeeeez ......... from cladding to Brexit in 6 posts

That's democracy, innit!

 

[davemercedes]

Last weekend I read a couple of snippets about the lack of distribution of the massive funds people donated for the victims of the Glenfell disaster. Looking around the web, I see that (according to the Graduian on 18 August) just 30% of Grenfell Tower fire funds have reached victims.

I remember somebody posted that it would take years to sort it out and a lot of money would be made and that seems to be coming true. Is this yet another scandal in the making?

 

[Craiglxviii]

Last weekend I read a couple of snippets about the lack of distribution of the massive funds people donated for the victims of the Glenfell disaster. Looking around the web, I see that (according to the Graduian on 18 August) just 30% of Grenfell Tower fire funds have reached victims.

I remember somebody posted that it would take years to sort it out and a lot of money would be made and that seems to be coming true. Is this yet another scandal in the making?

At 30% that's about on par for the course with the likes of OXFAM then.

 

[L John]

As far as I'm aware, this unsafe cladding is legal and considered suitable for buildings less than 10 metres tall.
I expect they will be taking them off tall buildings and putting them on smaller buildings instead of disposing of them.
The idea is a building less than 10 metres high can be reached by firemens ladders so combustible cladding is legal up to this height.
The PE cladding on the Grenfell Tower was designed for use up to 10M and unless there's been a law change, it's still legal for that use.
Why would any contractor clad a building up to 10 metres with cladding that can catch fire like this, oh yes of course, profit before safety but why it's legal to do this is beyond my comprehension.

 

[geraldrobins]

As far as I'm aware, this unsafe cladding is legal and considered suitable for buildings less than 10 metres tall.
I expect they will be taking them off tall buildings and putting them on smaller buildings instead of disposing of them.
The idea is a building less than 10 metres high can be reached by firemens ladders so combustible cladding is legal up to this height.
The PE cladding on the Grenfell Tower was designed for use up to 10M and unless there's been a law change, it's still legal for that use.
Why would any contractor clad a building up to 10 metres with cladding that can catch fire like this, oh yes of course, profit before safety but why it's legal to do this is beyond my comprehension.

Its not just a contractors profit margin. It may have been specified and the saving passed down the line to the rent payer. A contractor usually quotes to do what he is asked.

 

[davemercedes]

Grenfell Tower firm has housing contract terminated
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41422255

 

[davemercedes]

Exclusive - After Grenfell fire, same builders rehired to replace dangerous cladding, Reuters finds

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...angerous-cladding-reuters-finds-idUKKBN1E714Z

- Physician heal thyself perhaps?

 

[3146bj]

From the comments here, it seems the reaction to the flammable cladding problem is the same in the UK as here - blame the builder. The builder does as he is told on the drawings and in the specification. If he doesn't, the project manager/building supervisor makes him replace it with the specified material.

If the material used does not comply with the building code or standard, either:

1. The architect/designer stuffed up and specified the wrong material and the project manager didn't pick it up, or,
2. The correct material was specified and the builder installed a cheaper substitute, which, again, the project manage missed, or,
3. The correct material was specified in the contract documents, and the builder was directed by the architect or project manager to use a cheaper substitute to save money, or
4. The building inspector missed the change, or didn't check.

Having been involved in some incident investigations, when it all goes wrong, the pressure is on to get a quick result with minimum adverse publicity for the developer/designer/manager at the top of the chain and to hell with the impact on the poor guy who has done as he was told. Everybody in the construction chain is under pressure to keep costs down, but when it goes pear-shaped it is the guy at the bottom who wears the flak. Usually, it is trial by media, with reports written by hacks who have no idea what they are writing about and just quote 5 second sound bites from equally ignorant developers, etc trying to keep their heads down.

These are my general comments and do not refer to any specific case.

 

[davemercedes]

From the comments here, it seems the reaction to the flammable cladding problem is the same in the UK as here - blame the builder. The builder does as he is told on the drawings and in the specification. If he doesn't, the project manager/building supervisor makes him replace it with the specified material.

If the material used does not comply with the building code or standard, either:

1. The architect/designer stuffed up and specified the wrong material and the project manager didn't pick it up, or,
2. The correct material was specified and the builder installed a cheaper substitute, which, again, the project manage missed, or,
3. The correct material was specified in the contract documents, and the builder was directed by the architect or project manager to use a cheaper substitute to save money, or
4. The building inspector missed the change, or didn't check.

Having been involved in some incident investigations, when it all goes wrong, the pressure is on to get a quick result with minimum adverse publicity for the developer/designer/manager at the top of the chain and to hell with the impact on the poor guy who has done as he was told. Everybody in the construction chain is under pressure to keep costs down, but when it goes pear-shaped it is the guy at the bottom who wears the flak. Usually, it is trial by media, with reports written by hacks who have no idea what they are writing about and just quote 5 second sound bites from equally ignorant developers, etc trying to keep their heads down.

These are my general comments and do not refer to any specific case.

You missed a bit :

When the circumstances are reviewed, Jobs for The Boys comes into play and a select few get paid a great deal of money... to the point that it's NOT in their interest to get a move on. So here we are 6 months later with the enquiry only now getting started (I wonder what the £-remuneration for setting it up worked out as...?).

Meanwhile it's good see a level of consistency being maintained:

Only a fraction of the £18.9m collected for survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster has been distributed to them to date, according to data released by the Charity Commission.

This article says £2.8m has reached victims – less than 15% of the total raised by charities led by the Red Cross, the Kensington & Chelsea Foundation and the Evening Standard.

 

[Frontstep]

Clearly the builder puts up what he is asked to.
Many people will have been appointed before he gets his hard hat out, when he is working and has finished many more will look at it.
An inquiry by necessity has to collect evidence so it takes time and explains why many incidents do not have these investigations.
People of the standards required to do this work earn a lot its just the way it is.

The money collected if distributed immediately would end up wasted by many.

 

[davemercedes]

Clearly the builder puts up what he is asked to.
Many people will have been appointed before he gets his hard hat out, when he is working and has finished many more will look at it.
An inquiry by necessity has to collect evidence so it takes time and explains why many incidents do not have these investigations.
People of the standards required to do this work earn a lot its just the way it is.

The money collected if distributed immediately would end up wasted by many.

... Maybe. But chance might be a good thing. I don't think every Tom Dick and Harriet who chipped in to these charities was looking to see their contributions held in a great big stash - they wanted to provide some instant relief to victims.

 

[Frosty149]

There is myriad legislation in place to counter such tragedies, but, is it sufficient?
I’ve spent 20yrs in the industry and it’s well known that retrospective works to existing buildings escape much of the more rigorous requirements specified in new builds.
That said current legislation affecting a project of this size include:
CDM (Construction Design Management) which requires a principal designer to be identified and design out future risk and hazards consequential to the works, (amongst many other requirements) usually this would be architects or specialist consultants, who must comply with current legislation regarding construction methods and materials. The HSE must also be notified.
Fire legislation requires that landlords must appoint suitable
surveyors to carry out an annual survey and report on the building’s compliance with legislation and identify remedial actions where needed. A project of this size would require a post works survey as the works would have represented significant change to the building.
Part B of the buildings regulations deals specifically with fire planning and control, considering escape, warning, construction materials etc and is very detailed.

Planning and building control by the local authority to ensure that works are completed to an approved specification. In accordance with all of the above.

The HSE (health and safety executive) are in place to investigate accidents or breeches or safe conduct - they in conjunction with the Fire Service will be part of the technical investigation and have the authority to pursue criminal and civil enquiries.

When you consider all of the above, some shortcuts appear to have been made and accepted at a very senior level....

 

[Frontstep]

Quite a lot has been distributed but I would imagine most involved were suprised at the amounts raised.
The problem I suppose is where it is you can spend £20 million on one property and they could need quite a few.