Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
24-level building tower fire in West London 33
- Thread starter Ingenuity
- Start date
The last two links don't go very far... looks like they have cleaned them out.
epoxybot... you appear to be as big a scrounger as I am... maybe bigger. More stars... Great catch. I have not been able to locate any approved shop drawings for the cladding. I'm still not able to determine if the Architect or the Council neck should be on the block... I'm not familiar with the British system.
Added: If they had only used the batt insulation shown on the drawings...
Dik
epoxybot... you appear to be as big a scrounger as I am... maybe bigger. More stars... Great catch. I have not been able to locate any approved shop drawings for the cladding. I'm still not able to determine if the Architect or the Council neck should be on the block... I'm not familiar with the British system.
Added: If they had only used the batt insulation shown on the drawings...
Dik
dik (Structural)
Those last two links go to the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea webpages that list other documents related to the Grenfell Tower refurbishment. Others on eng-tips mentioned they had difficulty with the link Ingenuity posted back on June 15th. I have not had a problem. You might try pasting the link in different browser.
Those last two links go to the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea webpages that list other documents related to the Grenfell Tower refurbishment. Others on eng-tips mentioned they had difficulty with the link Ingenuity posted back on June 15th. I have not had a problem. You might try pasting the link in different browser.
Thanks dik,
The judge himself seems to have concerns about the limited scope he has been permitted, and the government is under a lot of pressure to ensure this report addresses all the causes of the disaster. Conservative governments generally oppose increased government oversight and regulation, and I imagine that they are worried that a full in-depth review of all the contributory factors will highlight some major shortcomings of both the regulations and their enforcement.
The judge himself seems to have concerns about the limited scope he has been permitted, and the government is under a lot of pressure to ensure this report addresses all the causes of the disaster. Conservative governments generally oppose increased government oversight and regulation, and I imagine that they are worried that a full in-depth review of all the contributory factors will highlight some major shortcomings of both the regulations and their enforcement.
btrueblood
Mechanical
Meh. I think we've got you beat for awhile, Scotty.
Looks like engineering may get a bad name; I'd been putting the blame on Architects. From the BBC,
"Newsnight has obtained confidential reports that help explain how flammable material has become more common on tall buildings.
Combustible cladding has been permitted based on reports arguing fires involving combustible aluminium panels would behave similarly to ones with non-combustible ceramic tiles.
Developers use them to persuade inspectors to sign off buildings.
Exova, the company that produced the reports, refused to comment.
The company, also known as Exova Warringtonfire, is a fire testing and engineering company."
Link:
Added: and another link:
Dik
"Newsnight has obtained confidential reports that help explain how flammable material has become more common on tall buildings.
Combustible cladding has been permitted based on reports arguing fires involving combustible aluminium panels would behave similarly to ones with non-combustible ceramic tiles.
Developers use them to persuade inspectors to sign off buildings.
Exova, the company that produced the reports, refused to comment.
The company, also known as Exova Warringtonfire, is a fire testing and engineering company."
Link:
Added: and another link:
Dik
-
1
- #209
They sound like a supervisor I once had. OK, several of them over the years. Asking to pluck support for their position from thin air because they had already promised someone that a course of action would work, often ahead of schedule and always far below budget.
It usually involved the phrase, "Can you prove it won't work?" I would say, "Yes, let's do a test." This was met with "This isn't a science project. We're not funded so you can amuse yourself."
Needless to say, I don't work with people like that.
It's too bad that ethics isn't a marketable skill.
It usually involved the phrase, "Can you prove it won't work?" I would say, "Yes, let's do a test." This was met with "This isn't a science project. We're not funded so you can amuse yourself."
Needless to say, I don't work with people like that.
It's too bad that ethics isn't a marketable skill.
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
Speaking of "get(ting) a bad name"...
Evacuees of Grenfell tower still being charged rent
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
Evacuees of Grenfell tower still being charged rent
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
Exova Warringtonfire was on the Grenfell Towers list of contractors/consultants, while Leadbitter was still involved in the planning stage. Grenfell was part & parcel of a much larger project being run by Leadbitter. So working for KCTMO
They are on the project planning routing list, bottom of the very last page. Link
They are on the project planning routing list, bottom of the very last page. Link
From the Guardian, "In 2015, the brigade issued all 33 London councils with an audit tool to help them conduct a risk assessment, fearing that competition to bring down costs among contractors, project managers and planning inspection teams had led to high-rise refurbishments being passed off without adequate oversight."
Link:
Dik
Link:
Dik
HamburgerHelper
Electrical
I very much doubt it is an "accident" that the former residents are still being charged rent. The next day after the fire, the owners and everyone involved was on the phone with lawyers trying to figure out how much money they have to fight it and how much it will probably cost to get out of. The correct action by the former residents would be to file an insane number of small claims and chew up whatever still charging rent got them.
Around here if a rented place doesn't provide the "essentials" then the landlord must provide alternate housing until the original housing is restored to habitable status. "Essential" includes; heat, running water, electricity, sewage, and security. Somehow I doubt the existing structure is doing that for all those people.
They could be demanding alternate shelter which the landlord has to supply. If they stop paying rent than the shelter requirement probably ceases.
Keith Cress
kcress -
They could be demanding alternate shelter which the landlord has to supply. If they stop paying rent than the shelter requirement probably ceases.
Keith Cress
kcress -
From the BBC,
"Sir Martin Moore-Bick's inquiry will "go right back to the construction of the tower" in the 1970s to examine warnings that may have been missed.
He said previously it was unlikely the inquiry would look at wider social issues in Kensington and Chelsea.
The remit of the inquiry will be decided by the prime minister.
Added:
Meanwhile, some of the survivors have written a letter to the prime minister with 12 demands for changes in the way the disaster is being handled.
These include:
Withdraw the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick as chairman of the inquiry
Explain what consultation will take place before the inquiry's terms of reference are finalised
Guarantee that the inquiry chair will adopt wide terms of reference that goes beyond the narrow one outlined by his recent statement
Ensure the government co-ordinated response team is available 24 hours a day
Confirm that undocumented survivors will be given full UK citizenship
BMElawyers4Grenfell, a group of black and minority ethnic lawyers, wrote the letter on behalf of some of the survivors."
Link:
also from the BBC, "Cladding on 181 high-rise buildings across 51 local authority areas in England has failed fire safety tests, latest figures reveal."
Link:
Added: Itsmoked: maybe 3 times as many as noted in my earlier posting... and it could get worse.
Dik
"Sir Martin Moore-Bick's inquiry will "go right back to the construction of the tower" in the 1970s to examine warnings that may have been missed.
He said previously it was unlikely the inquiry would look at wider social issues in Kensington and Chelsea.
The remit of the inquiry will be decided by the prime minister.
Added:
Meanwhile, some of the survivors have written a letter to the prime minister with 12 demands for changes in the way the disaster is being handled.
These include:
Withdraw the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick as chairman of the inquiry
Explain what consultation will take place before the inquiry's terms of reference are finalised
Guarantee that the inquiry chair will adopt wide terms of reference that goes beyond the narrow one outlined by his recent statement
Ensure the government co-ordinated response team is available 24 hours a day
Confirm that undocumented survivors will be given full UK citizenship
BMElawyers4Grenfell, a group of black and minority ethnic lawyers, wrote the letter on behalf of some of the survivors."
Link:
also from the BBC, "Cladding on 181 high-rise buildings across 51 local authority areas in England has failed fire safety tests, latest figures reveal."
Link:
Added: Itsmoked: maybe 3 times as many as noted in my earlier posting... and it could get worse.
Dik
I thought this would happen. The government completely misjudged public mood when they said the enquiry would be restricted in scope: the public perception is that the regulators have dropped the ball when it comes to enforcement and oversight, and on the face of it so far public perception doesn't seem far from the truth.
georgeverghese
Chemical
How is it that this horrible accident (and the appalling state of disrepair of the electrical system in this building, which presumably is the initial - root cause of ignition) occurs in a council housing block which has an unusually high percentage of recent migrants when compared to the rest of the demographic in the RBKC? Just pure coincidence ? How did these people all get herded into this one council block in the first place ?
-
1
- #220
Some very expensive towers in the Middle East have also gone up in flames, though presumably more expensive windows prevented the fire from re-entering and setting fire to the interiors. As such it is more a matter of economics and lack of experience with external fires than is likely related to the immigrant status of the occupants. Given the fire department left the premises apparently satisfied with their initial job of extinguishing the inside fire and that other fires like this have not produced a multi-story inferno, it's a reach to think there is a conspiracy.
Recall that cast-iron bridges were built in quantity for some time before they started failing from fatigue and undetectable inclusions. Once that was sorted out the rate of failures (presumably) dropped. Then came the Tacoma Narrows bridge with a really interesting failure mode, and so on. Complacency and ignorance are contributors to spectacular failure.
It seems like this sort of failure can happen in a large number of buildings - at the least, previous assurances of fire-resistance have seemingly been eliminated. If true, then any of the other buildings might have gone up first.
Wrapping a building in easily ignited fuel cannot be excused by eliminating common ignition sources.
Recall that cast-iron bridges were built in quantity for some time before they started failing from fatigue and undetectable inclusions. Once that was sorted out the rate of failures (presumably) dropped. Then came the Tacoma Narrows bridge with a really interesting failure mode, and so on. Complacency and ignorance are contributors to spectacular failure.
It seems like this sort of failure can happen in a large number of buildings - at the least, previous assurances of fire-resistance have seemingly been eliminated. If true, then any of the other buildings might have gone up first.
Wrapping a building in easily ignited fuel cannot be excused by eliminating common ignition sources.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question