Grenfell Tower inflammable cladding was never tested


Grenfell Tower cladding

By Richard Tyler in Britain:

Grenfell Tower combustible cladding was never tested

27 February 2018

The cladding used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower was never subject to legally required fire safety tests.

According to the London Times, no record of independent testing of the cladding/insulation system has been found by three separate investigations into the Grenfell fire, including the government’s own expert panel on fire safety, the Metropolitan Police and the Hackitt Review into building regulations.

The potential risk extends to 299 other high-rise buildings in England that use similar cladding and insulation, including at least nine hospitals, 160 social housing blocks, 31 student residences, 13 public buildings and 95 private residential blocks.

The Times quotes a source with knowledge of the investigations saying, “The question has to be asked is how on earth did this material come to be installed on all of those buildings. Somehow or other, those materials have got on to 300 buildings without any tests being done or test results being produced.”

The refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, in which 71 lost their lives in the June 2017 fire, was signed off by building control managers at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council in 2016. However, if the report by the Times is correct, the cladding system never underwent mandatory safety testing.

An article in Fire Engineering magazine, published for nearly 140 years to “provide training, education and management information for fire and emergency services personnel worldwide”, concludes that a major factor in the spread of the fire at Grenfell Tower was the large size of the air-gap between the external cladding and the insulation layer attached to the building façade.

According to the author, Vyto Babrauskas, a fire safety science expert and US delegate to the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in the late 1990s and early 2000s—working to develop international standards for façade testing—the rapid spread of the fire at Grenfell was due to the “Schlyter effect.” This occurs in a fire when two panels on a building façade are separated by a small gap though which air can flow. As Babrauskas writes, “some materials may show limited burning and no significant flame spread when ignited as a single panel but yet show severe burning when a second panel is used.”

The effect was first demonstrated as long ago as 1939 by Ragnar Schylter, then head fire safety researcher at the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute. Babrauskas notes that although this effect is known to some fire scientists, it is “not generally well known in the fire safety area.”

“The best way to stop air flow is not have a gap in the first place. But if a gap has to exist for some moisture engineering purpose, then it is essential that it be less than 25mm or one inch and be fully fire stopped along the bottom and the sides by materials that cannot fail in the heat of the fire. If these precepts are not understood or are ignored, a bad situation can quickly be made much worse.”

Schylter had found that an air-gap of 25mm (1 inch) provided the optimum spacing to promote upward flame spread in a cavity. At 50mm (2 inches), the gap at Grenfell Tower was twice this width.

In the late 19th century, the first high-rise buildings had façades made of concrete, stone, brick, steel or glass. There was no need of a test for combustibility since these materials are inherently non-combustible. The situation changed 30 or 40 years ago with the introduction of “exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS).” These are generally cheaper and often employ combustible materials with only a thin protective aluminium skin, which can soon melt in a fire. Non-combustible insulation alternatives, such as mineral wool, are available, but cost more.

The existing fire testing regimes for such cladding systems are generally inadequate, according to Babrauskas. In the case of Grenfell Tower, he comments that “even a novice fire safety functionary should have questioned a 150-mm (six-inch) layer of plastic foam,” used as insulation, adding that although it ostensibly carries the “best flame spread rating in the UK testing methodology” the “UK system for flame spread classification does not do an acceptable job of classifying foam materials.”

Research carried out earlier by Canada’s National Research Council (NRC) into the Schylter effect indicated that “the most minimal levels of combustibility would suffice to create a disaster when a cavity is created in a wall, especially one twice the width of the maximum 25-mm gap found acceptable by the NRC researchers.”

A tall façade using a combination of combustible materials, such as plastic and insulation foam, together with an air gap is, in Babrauskas’ view, “a design that trifles with the public safety.”

After the Grenfell Tower fire this is incontestable. For the sake of saving a few thousand pounds, an inherently unsafe form of cladding was used on a building without a proper fire warning or sprinkler system, and with inadequate escape routes.

Culpability extends from those responsible for proposing such cladding, to the local authority for signing off on its use, and the building contractors for fitting such dangerous materials. The lack of a rigorous testing regime, despite known contributing hazards such as the Schylter effect, points to a criminal conspiracy at the heart of what are supposedly called “building standards.” These exist primarily not for the protection of the public, but to enable the use of the lowest cost materials and hence the greatest profits for the construction giants and property speculators.

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Grenfell Tower inflammable cladding was never tested

  1. Pingback: Murdoch media smear London Grenfell disaster survivor | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  2. Pingback: British Conservative OK for flammable cladding | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster survivor Joe Delaney interviewed | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: British Conservative neglect of fire safety doors | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster information cover-up | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: British Conservatives sabotaging fire safety | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: ‘London Grenfell fire disaster was murder’ | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: British Conservatives break Grenfell disaster survivors rehousing promises | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster area residents speak out | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: From British Grenfell disaster to local elections | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. Pingback: British Conservative government still allowing ‘Grenfell’ flammable cladding | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  12. Pingback: London Conservative politicians blamed for flammable Grenfell Tower cladding | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  13. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster, Conservative government whitewash | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  14. Pingback: ‘Grenfell’ flammable cladding in Australia | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  15. Pingback: British government excludes bereaved relatives from Grenfell disaster inquiry | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  16. Pingback: Grenfell disaster, royal wedding in Britain | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  17. Pingback: London Grenfell Tower disaster, because of greed | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  18. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster and Conservative fire safety sabotage | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  19. Pingback: British police scapegoating firefighters for Grenfell disaster instead of politicians, businessmen | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  20. Pingback: London Grenfell Tower disaster, Conservative politicians to blame | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  21. Pingback: London Grenfell Silent Marchers interviewed | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  22. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster, Cameron’s ‘killing of safety culture’ | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  23. Pingback: Grenfell fire disaster, London march for justice | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  24. Pingback: Grenfell activist Delaney against London Review of Books smears | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  25. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster, slow police investigation | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  26. Pingback: Still Grenfell-type flammable cladding all over Britain | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  27. Pingback: ‘Politicians guilty in London Grenfell disaster’ | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  28. Pingback: London Grenfell disaster, corporations, Conservatives guilty | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  29. Pingback: ‘Grenfell’ flammable cladding, continue, British Conservatives say | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  30. Pingback: London Grenfell Tower Inquiry survivor’s statement | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  31. Pingback: Remove ‘Grenfell’ flammable cladding in Britain now | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  32. Pingback: Grenfell and other British fire disasters | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  33. Pingback: London Grenfell Tower fire, still no justice | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  34. Pingback: London Grenfell fire disaster, guilty corporation lies | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  35. Pingback: London Grenfell fire disaster, 18 months ago | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  36. Pingback: London Grenfell fire disaster survivors fight on | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  37. Pingback: British corporation extorts residents for removing ‘Grenfell’ cladding | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  38. Pingback: ´Name British Grenfell inflammable cladding landlords ´ | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  39. Pingback: London Grenfell Tower cladding disaster, new study | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.