Grenfell Tower Fire

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 970 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - 04:56 pm:    I presume many of you are following this. Apparently, the recent re-cladding of the building has been a contributing factor, making a bad situation worse. I would like to know more about the materials/system that was installed. Could NFPA 285 testing prevented this? J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 313 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - 05:34 pm:    To the best of my knowledge, NFPA has no application in the UK. That said, I would think testing like NFPA 285 should have made the fire susceptibility of the installed system obvious. I understand that ACM (aluminum composite material) panels were used. Reportedly they were installed on wooden battens, but I have yet to see a reputable source for this information. It appears that the building had no sprinkler system (not required by code) and no reliable fire alarm system. I wonder if the owners will ever face the consequences or if there are too many “front” companies between them and legal liability. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - 06:19 pm:    This paper, written by a researcher from NFPA, shows a chart outlining similar tests to NFPA 285 applicable in other countries and a summary of some international regulations relating to combustible materials used in exterior walls. It notes the following for the UK: "For buildings 18 m (59 ft) or higher or less than 1 m (3.3 ft) from a boundary, the UK Building Regulations and Approved Document B requires the use of full-scale tests BS 8414 Part 1 and 2 or materials need to be non-combustible or limited combustibility materials based on small-scale test BS 476 Part 6 and Part 11 tests or Euroclass system. However, often UK insurers require full-scale testing to BS 8414." https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/BEST4_6.1%20Kimball.pdf J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 971 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2017 - 09:30 am:    It appears that the building was reclad in an ACP rain screen system over rigid insulation. The accompanying article says that firestopping the air cavity between floors and around fenestration is a requirement (although this would seem to compromise the "rainscreen" design). Although more investigation is needed, I would not be surprised to find that polystyrene insulation was used and that the specific product did not meet requirements for a Class A (or the British equivalent) material and that the firestopping was omitted. If the firestopping was put in using polystyrene, it would be only slightly better than not having any firestopping at all. For more information, see http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=16862 There is a reason for limitations on "plastic insulation" in the IBC Chapter 26. I also have to wonder how the quantity surveyor process used in building procurement in Great Britain may have affected the materials ultimately used in the recladding project. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 972 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2017 - 09:34 am:    See also https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/disaster-waiting-to-happen-fire-expert-slams-uk-tower-blocks J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2017 - 09:49 am:    The Telegraph quoted a witness as saying that something that looked like polystyrene insulation was falling from the building in large and small pieces. The photos certainly look like EPS was installed as continuous insulation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/everything-know-grenfell-tower-blaze/?platform=hootsuite J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 973 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 - 03:46 pm:    Apparently Reynobond PE was used as the cladding (see https://www.dezeen.com/2017/06/19/grenfell-tower-cladding-identified-cheaper-more-flammable-option-architecture-news/). Although this material can be used on buildings up to a height of 40 ft. above grade, I believe that the IBC would limit the material installed above that level to be the FR product (a mineral core, rather than the plastic core). These limitations have been around a long time, and I would be surprised if a relatively recent renovation would have been permitted to use the MCM with a PE core. I am, however, deeply suspicious of the material used for the thermal insulation. The pictures I have seen indicate that most of this material has burned off as well which would seem to indicate a polystyrene product. It remains to be seen as to whether the required products and systems met the requirements of the AHJ or if there were products and systems which were substituted that did not meet these requirements. I have seen a number of reports that the building contained only one fire stair. Regardless of the cladding, designing a building of this type with only one stair seems to be to be unconscionable. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1722 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 - 05:28 pm:    Just from the during and after photos it looks like flammable plastic insulation was used. The extent of the flames makes me wonder if the fuel load provided by the core of the ACM by itself could account for the rapid spread and height of the flames. It seems like more fuel than that. I wouldn't be surprised to find that even some of the aluminum (or, I guess, aluminium since it is in England) also burned. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 246 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - 08:19 am:    The pictures in that last article certainly look like XPS, not Iso. Iso chars over when it burns. I can't count the number of buildings I've seen in the last three years that are built with extruded foam ci that shouldn't be. Our CSI Chapter held a meeting a year ago on complying with NFPA 285 and it was shocking, the number of people who had no idea that foam plastic was restricted the way it is. This isn't something every Architect understands. As its been stated above, I suspect that the ci contributed much more fuel that the cladding did. Edward J Dueppen, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: edueppen Post Number: 40 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - 08:35 am:    According to this article (see the isometric drawing), the insulation was polyiso. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/eight-failures-left-people-grenfell-tower-mercy-inferno/ Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 - 06:40 pm:    The insulation was a foil-faced polyisocyanurate product made by Celotex, sold in the UK. Celotex confirms this in numerous online news articles. The fire resistant core for ACM is not mineral fiber. It is not exactly the same for every ACM manufacturer, but it is either PVC or a fire resistant polyethylene. I have NFPA 285 test results from the manufacturer of the latter (which, incidentally, used foil-faced polyisocyanurate continuous insulation in the assembly). The assembly passes the test. It is more likely that the ACM used on the building was the non fire resistant type, which is limited in the US to 40 feet max height per the IBC. ACM exterior wall assemblies that pass NFPA 285 are allowed by the IBC, whether or not the core is made of plastic (as is the fire retardant Reynobond ACM product). Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1458 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - 08:05 pm:    From articles I've read and my correspondence with a reporter at The Guardian, the product used for the cladding is Reynobond PE. Per the Approved Documents for compliance with England's Building Regulations 2010, exterior cladding, such as Reynobond PE, is acceptable for buildings of any type and of any height. Section 12 of B4 "External Fire Spread," buildings greater than 18m must have a cladding that passes BS476 with a Class 0 rating, or pass European standard EN 13501 with a class B-s3,d2 or better. Reynobond PE has no listed test result for EN 13501, but is listed as Class 0 per BS476; thus it is approved in England. If the European standard was enforced only and not the British standard, then Reynobond PE would not have been permitted. The FR and A2 versions (the latter type, available in Europe, has a greater fire performance than the FR per European standards) would also have been acceptable under the English code. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 975 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 - 10:45 am:    Ron: I am curious if you are using "England" and "English" correctly. Are there different standards for Scotland and Wales? or do you really mean "Britain" and "British?" Would not be surprised if there are different standards for Scotland. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1459 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 - 11:13 am:    The Building Regulations apply to both England and Wales (although I did say "England's Building Regulations"). The "Approved Documents" (these are compliance documents similar to the 2010 ADA Standards, which are the compliance documents for the ADA law) only apply to England--apparently Wales has their own compliance documents. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1460 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 - 11:19 am:    I forgot to add that Scotland has its own building regulations as does Ireland. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 976 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 - 04:22 pm:    Here is a report that the insulation was polystyrene https://archpaper.com/2017/06/grenfell-tower-fire/. I would really like to know what the architect detailed and specified. If it was something other that what was installed, how did the change happen. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 - 05:14 pm:    J. Peter Jordan, Stated use of polystyrene insulation is not substantiated in any way in the article, which reads more like an op-ed piece than a credible source of information. On its web site, Celotex states “Our thoughts are with those affected by the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower in London. Our records show a Celotex product (RS5000) was purchased for use in refurbishing the building." RS5000 is foil faced polyiso. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/long-builder-chain-for-grenfell-a-safety-and-accountability-issue User (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, June 23, 2017 - 10:09 am:    Manslaughter charges for the specification writer? Heard on the news this morning that manslaughter charges are being considered for all parties involved in re-cladding this tower. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 860 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2017 - 02:43 pm:    I have some additional thoughts about the fire, and how CSI might improve our "Trusted Advisor" model: http://stlouiscsi.org/blog.php?name=id/25&bypassCookie=1 Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2120 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2017 - 02:58 pm:    Hmmm, George. Business ethics. A lengthy discussion needs to happen. Thanks. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 194 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2017 - 04:38 pm:    George, Please consider sending your excellent essay to the Construction Specifier as a "Horizons" column. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 83 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - 03:56 pm:    George, I concur with David's suggestion. Your article certainly deserves reading by a wide group. I'm going to pass the link on to a number of friends. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1574 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - 01:10 pm:    "Doug Roberts, Architect, returns from a long vacation to find work nearly completed on his skyscraper. He goes to the party that night concerned he's found that his wiring specifications have not been followed and that the building continues to develop short circuits. When the fire begins, Michael O'Halleran is the chief on duty as a series of daring rescues punctuate the terror of a building too tall to have a fire successfully fought from the ground." Sound familiar? This is the plot synopsis from the movie "Towering Inferno" (1974) David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1421 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 21, 2017 - 07:20 pm:    What hasn't been mentioned are the following two things: the building was not sprinklered. And, there was one exit stair. When the building was originally built in the 1970's, it had precast concrete panels, and rated walls between apartments. The fire treatment of the period was along the lines of "shelter in place". The fire is now determined to have originated from a refrigerator motor that overheated. With the original scenario, its conceiveable that the interior of the apartment would have been heavily involved, but flames spreading out of the windows would not have ignited the precast panels. We have multiple videos of buildings with flammable core siding where no one died -- those buildings were sprinklered and had adequate exit stairs and elevators. Often when we refinish existing buildings, we forget to think through how all of the existing systems were designed to work together. The existing Grenfell building was of non-flammable materials, and relied on a fire protection "system" that is now considered outdated and dangerous. That "system " wasn't updated to accommodate the greatly increased fire load. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 325 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, October 02, 2017 - 06:19 pm:    New research suggests heated aluminum in contact with water releases hydrogen that feeds fire. Source of water may have been moisture absorbed by polyisocyanurate insulation. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-evidence-submitted-grenfell-tower-inquiry.html Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru 818-219-4937 ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1111 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2017 - 11:41 am:    Thanks for sharing Michael. Scary. I wonder how the polyiso people will respond to this. Steve Gantner, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: sgantner Post Number: 54 Registered: 08-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2017 - 03:45 pm:    Ken, I don't think it will affect the polyiso industry as much as it has the potential to impact the MCM industry. The way I read it the polyiso absorbed the water which in itself doesn't seem that bad. It was when the hydrogen was released from the water via the hot aluminum that the intensity picked up. I'll be interested to read more about this line of research. Thanks for posting Michael Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1471 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2017 - 04:21 pm:    Within the U.S., I don't think it will affect the industry at all, since (1) combustible MCM is limited by code and (2) polyisocyanurate insulation would not be permitted in such applications because of NFPA 285. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1112 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2017 - 04:45 pm:    Ron, I know that XPS can't be used behind metal panels without having a layer of 5/8 inch gyp sheathing as a cover board but I thought polyiso can be. My personal preference is mineral fiber. The biggest takeaway here may be to compartmentalize the ventilated rainscreen system to prevent creation of a chimney effect. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1472 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2017 - 11:05 am:    Ken, anything combustible on the exterior of the building requires NFPA 285 testing (some exceptions apply, but not many), and polyisocyanurate insulation is a combustible material, which would require testing. If measures are not taken to protect the insulation when used as continuous insulation, then the assembly will most likely fail. I received a link to a white paper from FM Global this morning. It is an interesting read that compares two other recent, similar fires to the Grenfell Tower fire. https://newsroom.fmglobal.com/releases/history-repeats-itself-the-magnitude-of-the-grenfell-tower-fire-was-preventable-says-new-whitepaper-from-fm-global?utm_source=news_alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_term=news_alerts&utm_content=GrenfellTower100417&utm_campaign=news_alerts_campaign_2017 Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Brian E. Trimble, CDT Senior Member Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt Post Number: 95 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2017 - 01:09 pm:    Ron, Great information! Thanks for the link. The question is - will the US building codes respond to these fires in other parts of the world. While our codes don't seem to as lax as other countries, we have room for improvement too. Just look at the fires from all of the lightweight wood construction happening across the US. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1726 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2017 - 01:39 pm:    Ron, It might be more accurate to say anything that is "not non-combustible." Thus, if it's not tested or defined by code as non-combustible, then it has to be considered combustible. As you know, I think sometimes low flame-spread tests are confused with combustibility tests. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1473 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2017 - 02:12 pm:    Brian: We can regulate ourselves into oblivion, but it won't really change things. Stupid/evil people will continue to do stupid/evil things regardless of how many regulations you throw at it. John: The IBC uses the term "combustible materials," but defines what combustibility is per the specific application. In Chapter 7 for fire-resistance, anything not passing ASTM E 136 would be considered "combustible" and composite materials with surfacing materials having a FSI of 51 or more per ASTM E 84 would also be considered "combustible." It does state that FSI for finishes per ASTM E 84 does not determine noncombustibility--ASTM E 84 just limits the extent of combustibility. Chapter 14 indicates that combustible wall coverings are permitted, but are limited to those tested per NFPA 268 with no sustained flaming based on a tolerable level of incident radiant heat. Here, "combustible" would be anything that would not pass ASTM E 136, but NFPA 268 (like ASTM E 84) limits extent of combustibility. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 607 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2017 - 02:32 pm:    I work for a large international A/E firm which includes offices in the UK. After an in-house technical review of the Grenfell Tower fire we have put a complete stop to any highrise applications of aluminum composite panels with either polyiso or polystyrene insulation. For low rise, a local building code review and life safety report must be completed before moving forward with aluminum composite panels. And no...our firm has not had any sort of related fire incident on any of our projects.