On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 14:11:08 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 6/25/2017 1:20 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 06/25/2017 07:39 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I also find it unconscionable for Alcoa to make a product that is known
to burn and is not approved in much of the world. Hey, it cheaper and
the Brits will buy it. A bunch of people should end up in jail from
this.

Arconic (Alcoa) has two varieties of Reynobond, PE and FR, with FR
standing for 'fire resistant'. For many applications the cheaper PE
would be fine.

Architects and structural engineers are expected to evaluate materials'
suitability for the project at hand. Somewhere along the line somebody
said "Let's go cheap.' I would follow the chain from Omnis Exteriors,
Harley Facades, and Rydon Maintenance to the building owner.

Having been involved in engineering I'm willing to bet that all along
the way there were people saying "This is a bad idea, but the big boss
says 'Do it!'"

I'm not an Arconic shareholder or fan but pointing to them is like a
homeowner installing the cheapest possible vinyl siding and then
bitching when it fades and cracks within 10 years.



If your siding fades, will you die? I've been involved in making some
building materials for years and in the industry there may be some
cheaping out on thickness, density, other dimensions but no one ever
substituted regular material for the FR. In some applications it did
not matter but you did not take that chance.

My guess is their ass will be in the courts. They certainly would be in
the US.

IF the insulation faded instead of burned, people would still be alive
today. Follow the money.
It won't be Arconic on the block, it will be whoever signed the
authorization to install the PE instead of the FR. That MAY be someone
on London Council ( it is a council building) or it may be the
contractor (who chisled on the deal and bought PE instead of FR
product for the job)