On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 13:24:24 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Andy Burns
escribió:

But the aftermath photos seem to show a triangular void between concrete
columns and insulation.


#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@ @/
\@ @/
\@/
V

As Martin said in another thread, and as has been mentioned by a fire
safety expert on the news, this would create a chimney effect, assuming
no firebreaks were fitted. That would allow fire to travel up the void,
igniting adjacent cladding panels as it went.

There was mention on TV last night of checks on other cladded towers
across the country. Most, it seems, use a better skin as regards fire
resistance. But one which does use the same skin was mentioned as having a
different fitting method as regards airgaps and fire breaks, etc. Will be
interesting to find out the full details at any enquiry.

I think we are already at the point where all UK sales of Raynobond PE
should be chased down. Raiding their distributors and seizing files to
do it if that is what it takes. Priority should be given to eliminating
it from all the places where it most seriously compromises safety which
is just about anywhere that a true Class 0 fire resistance is required.

I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

As far as I can see the Celotex is more or less blameless although the
FR5000 would have been better I doubt if it would alter the outcome -
the outer layer of cladding just burnt far too fiercely.


Cyanide from PIR:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nhalation.html

Simon.