Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:45 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1825 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14367
Location: Coalfalls
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.

Pehaps the Irish aren't quite so convinced that folk with meagre bank accounts and unfashionable accents are disposable?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42610
MungoMan wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.

Pehaps the Irish aren't quite so convinced that folk with meagre bank accounts and unfashionable accents are disposable?

Without the requisite fire regulations, I'm sure we'd have no shortage of developers willing to clad with the cheapest shit available.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14367
Location: Coalfalls
camroc1 wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.

Pehaps the Irish aren't quite so convinced that folk with meagre bank accounts and unfashionable accents are disposable?

Without the requisite fire regulations, I'm sure we'd have no shortage of developers willing to clad with the cheapest shit available.

As would be true of any place where the desire to make money bubblefarts (sic) any residual concerns about others' welfare.

But the point is, you seem to have such regulations...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14800
Location: Melbourne
Mick Mannock wrote:
Openside wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.



If some twat had piled off the road into my wall I would be interested in getting insurance details too.

I love it, just because someone owns a house that are a Tory :? or was he wearing a rosette??


Good point. Good question.


If I was a betting man....

It wasn't a serious generalisation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1275
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


In other news from Ireland

Quote:
A number of apartment blocks and terraced homes here are potential death traps, fire fighting experts have warned, in the wake of the London tower inferno.

‘The potential for such a disaster in Ireland is here already,’ warned fire fighter union boss Ross MacCobb.

And fire engineer Noel Manning fears that as many as 80pc of all Irish homes pose a fire risk; he added that some terraced and semi-detached houses are as dangerous as apartment blocks.

Meanwhile, Kevin Hollingsworth, of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, explained that while safety features are supposed to ensure it would take a fire an hour to spread from apartment to apartment, out of the 29 he examined, ‘very few’ lived up to the regulations.

A combination of shoddy work during the Celtic Tiger era and the ‘widespread’ use of the same controversial building material believed to have played a deadly role in the Grenfell Tower tragedy mean many Irish people could be living in potentially lethal homes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19932
Lobby wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


In other news from Ireland

Quote:
A number of apartment blocks and terraced homes here are potential death traps, fire fighting experts have warned, in the wake of the London tower inferno.

‘The potential for such a disaster in Ireland is here already,’ warned fire fighter union boss Ross MacCobb.

And fire engineer Noel Manning fears that as many as 80pc of all Irish homes pose a fire risk; he added that some terraced and semi-detached houses are as dangerous as apartment blocks.

Meanwhile, Kevin Hollingsworth, of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, explained that while safety features are supposed to ensure it would take a fire an hour to spread from apartment to apartment, out of the 29 he examined, ‘very few’ lived up to the regulations.

A combination of shoddy work during the Celtic Tiger era and the ‘widespread’ use of the same controversial building material believed to have played a deadly role in the Grenfell Tower tragedy mean many Irish people could be living in potentially lethal homes.

Shush now, Cammy's having one of his turns


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21776
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


Like all things, it is a combinations of factors that have aggravated the seriousness of the event. Without the oversized drained cavity, the insulation wouldn't have gone up like it did and there wasn't a directed pathway past the window to the interior via vertical spread of flame and the windows themselves wouldn't have experienced such intense heat. Though, I imagine there was some sort of fire-stop material between the drained cavity and insulation, and the interior and window and cladding and cavity, which I assume is not shown in the cross section below for simplicity? A bit of ali angle supporting the window frames (at head, sill and presumably jamb) on its own is not a suitable stop.

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14367
Location: Coalfalls
Ted. wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


Like all things, it is a combinations of factors that have aggravated the seriousness of the event. Without the oversized drained cavity, the insulation wouldn't have gone up like it did and there wasn't a directed pathway past the window to the interior via vertical spread of flame and the windows themselves wouldn't have experienced such intense heat. Though, I imagine there was some sort of fire-stop material between the drained cavity and insulation, and the interior and window and cladding and cavity, which I assume is not shown in the cross section below for simplicity? A bit of ali angle supporting the window frames (at head, sill and presumably jamb) on its own is not a suitable stop.

Spoiler: show
Image


Planporn now, Ted? Tsk tsk.

You've probably given JTB a bone a dog would break its teeth on.


Last edited by MungoMan on Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7334
Ted. wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


Like all things, it is a combinations of factors that have aggravated the seriousness of the event. Without the oversized drained cavity, the insulation wouldn't have gone up like it did and there wasn't a directed pathway past the window to the interior via vertical spread of flame and the windows themselves wouldn't have experienced such intense heat. Though, I imagine there was some sort of fire-stop material between the drained cavity and insulation, and the interior and window and cladding and cavity, which I assume is not shown in the cross section below for simplicity? A bit of ali angle supporting the window frames (at head, sill and presumably jamb) on its own is not a suitable stop.

Spoiler: show
Image

Good read that, thanks Ted.

They probably would have mentioned it in the article if there was some fire-stop material? The insulation was supposed to be fire retardant... did they think that was enough in itself?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2774
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1275
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53717
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'


You monster, we will have to remove your vote for that comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34922
Location: Planet Rock
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

You have no idea you bloody idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23015
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'


I don't think he is thick. Just tried to make political capital out of death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53717
Anonymous. wrote:
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

You have no idea you bloody idiot.



More of an idea than Lammy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34922
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

You have no idea you bloody idiot.



More of an idea than Lammy.

What did Lammy say that would make you say that ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53717
Lammy says lots of very stupid and racist things. I'm suprised you're a fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34922
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Lammy says lots of very stupid and racist things. I'm suprised you're a fan.

I'm not surprised you think I'm a fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53717
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Lammy says lots of very stupid and racist things. I'm suprised you're a fan.

I'm not surprised you think I'm a fan.




Why? I'm normally very fair towards your weirdness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21864
Owns a sub standard tower block with same insulation as Grenfell but it's his tenants' responsibility to upgrade the building for him?
Residents of tower with Grenfell-style cladding told they must foot £2m bill

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... _clipboard


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 1017
Andrew O’Hagan in the London Review of Books on Grenfell Tower. An extraordinary piece, if you’ve got a couple of hours.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42610
Ramming Speed wrote:
Andrew O’Hagan in the London Review of Books on Grenfell Tower. An extraordinary piece, if you’ve got a couple of hours.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower

That's an excellent read, and a good description of how the press works today. High on opinion, low on facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1298
Ramming Speed wrote:
Andrew O’Hagan in the London Review of Books on Grenfell Tower. An extraordinary piece, if you’ve got a couple of hours.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower


thank you for posting that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 46915
Location: In the Centre/left wing
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

Can someone Google what this thick as shit MPs educational attainment are.
I'm on my phone, isn't the thick bastard a Harvard graduate and a barrister?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1275
c69 wrote:
Lobby wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Will Lily Allen and others who were publicly screaming about the death toll being much higher than official figures, apologise .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... d-missing/


More pertinently, will thick as sh*t MP David Lammy now accept that the real number of the dead were not being 'covered up'

Can someone Google what this thick as shit MPs educational attainment are.
I'm on my phone, isn't the thick bastard a Harvard graduate and a barrister?


This would be the same David Lammy who complained that the BBC reporting on the election of the new Pope was racist, because they asked if there was any white smoke yet, and who produced these answers when on Celebrity Mastermind:

1) What was the married name of the scientists Marie and Pierre who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1903 for their research into radiation? Antoinette

2) Which fortress was built in the 1370s to defend one of the gates of Paris, and was later used as a state prison by Cardinal Richelieu? Versailles

3) Who succeeded to the English throne aged nine on the death of his father Henry VIII in 1547? Henry VII

4) Which country's Rose Revolution of 2003 led to the resignation of President Edward Shevardnadze? Yugoslavia.

His comments in the aftermath of the fire, when he claimed there was a deliberate cover up to hide the true number of people who died without any evidence to support his claims were also idiotic and prejudicial.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1825 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Fat Old Git, Ghost-Of-Nepia, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], mr bungle, ovalball, shortbutlong, Tehui, The Native, True Blue and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group