+86 1
what next for buildings with flammable cladding?
by：Topson
2020-07-12
The government is conducting a series of new tests to try to determine how much it should worry about the cladding of high-rise buildings and how vulnerable they are to fires.
These tests are very important.
And the number of buildings that may result in being considered unsafe is less than suggested by the recent report.
But maybe not. We do not know.
These new tests will be big: Scientists will monitor a big one. scale mock-
The package layer used on the Grenfell Tower wall, as well as the other five package layer configurations.
There must be wide --
A series of questions from glendfair, but the exterior of the building remains a major concern for officials: The fires in Kensington quickly spread outside the building.
So far, the government has been looking for other buildings that cover a layer of polyethylene (plastic)core -
The type of crust is packed in Mr.
They are also concerned about installing buildings that are just \"flame retardant\" panels --
Similar, but a little bit of fire
Panel category, resistant.
In order to be considered safe by the government\'s tests, the cladding should be \"limited combustion\" and comply with the fire safety standards in the term \"A2.
So far, the focus of the test has been to determine which buildings have what types of aluminum plates.
So far, they have identified 181 buildings where the aluminum panels do not meet the A2 standard.
However, it is still unclear how we should explain these results.
Not all buildings are dangerous.
This is because the fire resistance outside the building is more than just the function of the external skin.
For example, it is also important for developers to install fire prevention devices and whether the materials under the skin are combustible.
That\'s why we need these big tests.
In Grenfell, aluminum is located above the insulation layer of Celotex RS 5000, which is combustible.
This undoubtedly helps heat and spread: in any given insulation, there is a lot more combustible material than that in an aluminum panel.
If the same aluminum plate is installed on the top of the A2 insulation, the situation may vary.
For example, a fire broke out in Camden on 2012.
Where does polyethylene rise-
The core package layer is installed.
In this case the fire is not moving and the insulation there is not moving
Combustible can be the reason to prevent the fire from becoming more serious.
So we really need to determine how worried we should be about what parts of the wall system are.
As a result, these new tests have been commissioned by the community and local government departments, which will require the installation of a 9-metre-
High demonstration wall with \"complete cladding system\"
Panel and insulation included
Fix it on it and then let it be affected by the fire, which replicated a serious fire in the apartment outside the window and whether it would spread to the outer wall \".
This does not mean that they will commission such tests for each building.
Instead, they will do six tests to cover a range of scenarios.
They will use three common Aluminum Composite Panels: non-
Combustible panels, fire protection panels and panels with polyethylene cores.
Every one has to be tested twice. once with non-
Combustible insulation and primary combustible.
They may end up doing more: for example, there are several types of combustible materials that may behave differently, and the way insulation is installed is very important.
For example, the size of the insulation layer is very important, and fire prevention is also very important (
Obstacles in buildings where fire cannot pass).
However, our goal is to start looking at how secure or unsafe these configurations are.
You might want to know that after a few weeks of a fire, we don\'t know how many high-rise buildings have unsafe coatings.
However, it is worth taking a step back to understand why.
In fact, there are three main road lines that can be signed.
Wrap that up.
One of the problems we have explained is the third route. The so-
So-called \"desktop research\" can sometimes rely on very different types of tests.
We have revealed some cases where the aluminum plate has been signed, based on the test of using the tile --
A very different material.
Therefore, some combustible coatings may be installed without testing.
These studies appear to be routinely commissioned by companies that make evaluation materials and will only be released if the sponsor wants to release the materials.
These studies are confidential, which means that the scale of the issues raised by these studies is not clear.
But their significance and scale are clearly far more than previously known.
News night revealed how an agency supplying construction inspectors issued guidance saying they would sign B-
Grade insulation paired with B-
There is not even a grade panel for desktop research.
The agency NHBC proves it safe based on the extensive fire tests and desktop studies they see. (
They have now withdrawn this guidance. )
Big Government-
The scale test will have an actual impact on any cladding system that is not entirely composed of A2 components.
They may reveal that some cladding systems that use combustible materials are actually safe because the way they are installed means that the fire does not spread.
In fact, they will prove that the judgment in the desktop study is correct.
On the contrary, the test may find that a large number of buildings must quickly strip off the insulation and outer cladding.
Because we don\'t know, the government is doing tests.
However, it is worth noting that there is a curiosity about these tests.
If any material combination fails to pass the test, it will automatically invalidate any desktop study that concludes to the contrary with similar material configurations.
I explained that there were some changes, but the desktop study we saw included the following language: \"If the test author obtained conflicting evidence, the assessment would be withdrawn without conditions, and notify the company entrusted to study in writing.
In the event of a subsequent test evaluation of the building, the evaluation will be invalid because the actual test data is considered to be preferred to the opinion expressed.
\"As a result, these tests may give the building owner a cladding system that does not meet the fire safety standards --
For example, they may find themselves unable to insure them.
People have been nervous about whether the government should force private companies to test the cladding on their buildings. But the knock-
Through insurance companies, the impact of these fire tests may force various buildings to be tested
And the dramatic reshapingon their own.
These tests are very important.
And the number of buildings that may result in being considered unsafe is less than suggested by the recent report.
But maybe not. We do not know.
These new tests will be big: Scientists will monitor a big one. scale mock-
The package layer used on the Grenfell Tower wall, as well as the other five package layer configurations.
There must be wide --
A series of questions from glendfair, but the exterior of the building remains a major concern for officials: The fires in Kensington quickly spread outside the building.
So far, the government has been looking for other buildings that cover a layer of polyethylene (plastic)core -
The type of crust is packed in Mr.
They are also concerned about installing buildings that are just \"flame retardant\" panels --
Similar, but a little bit of fire
Panel category, resistant.
In order to be considered safe by the government\'s tests, the cladding should be \"limited combustion\" and comply with the fire safety standards in the term \"A2.
So far, the focus of the test has been to determine which buildings have what types of aluminum plates.
So far, they have identified 181 buildings where the aluminum panels do not meet the A2 standard.
However, it is still unclear how we should explain these results.
Not all buildings are dangerous.
This is because the fire resistance outside the building is more than just the function of the external skin.
For example, it is also important for developers to install fire prevention devices and whether the materials under the skin are combustible.
That\'s why we need these big tests.
In Grenfell, aluminum is located above the insulation layer of Celotex RS 5000, which is combustible.
This undoubtedly helps heat and spread: in any given insulation, there is a lot more combustible material than that in an aluminum panel.
If the same aluminum plate is installed on the top of the A2 insulation, the situation may vary.
For example, a fire broke out in Camden on 2012.
Where does polyethylene rise-
The core package layer is installed.
In this case the fire is not moving and the insulation there is not moving
Combustible can be the reason to prevent the fire from becoming more serious.
So we really need to determine how worried we should be about what parts of the wall system are.
As a result, these new tests have been commissioned by the community and local government departments, which will require the installation of a 9-metre-
High demonstration wall with \"complete cladding system\"
Panel and insulation included
Fix it on it and then let it be affected by the fire, which replicated a serious fire in the apartment outside the window and whether it would spread to the outer wall \".
This does not mean that they will commission such tests for each building.
Instead, they will do six tests to cover a range of scenarios.
They will use three common Aluminum Composite Panels: non-
Combustible panels, fire protection panels and panels with polyethylene cores.
Every one has to be tested twice. once with non-
Combustible insulation and primary combustible.
They may end up doing more: for example, there are several types of combustible materials that may behave differently, and the way insulation is installed is very important.
For example, the size of the insulation layer is very important, and fire prevention is also very important (
Obstacles in buildings where fire cannot pass).
However, our goal is to start looking at how secure or unsafe these configurations are.
You might want to know that after a few weeks of a fire, we don\'t know how many high-rise buildings have unsafe coatings.
However, it is worth taking a step back to understand why.
In fact, there are three main road lines that can be signed.
Wrap that up.
One of the problems we have explained is the third route. The so-
So-called \"desktop research\" can sometimes rely on very different types of tests.
We have revealed some cases where the aluminum plate has been signed, based on the test of using the tile --
A very different material.
Therefore, some combustible coatings may be installed without testing.
These studies appear to be routinely commissioned by companies that make evaluation materials and will only be released if the sponsor wants to release the materials.
These studies are confidential, which means that the scale of the issues raised by these studies is not clear.
But their significance and scale are clearly far more than previously known.
News night revealed how an agency supplying construction inspectors issued guidance saying they would sign B-
Grade insulation paired with B-
There is not even a grade panel for desktop research.
The agency NHBC proves it safe based on the extensive fire tests and desktop studies they see. (
They have now withdrawn this guidance. )
Big Government-
The scale test will have an actual impact on any cladding system that is not entirely composed of A2 components.
They may reveal that some cladding systems that use combustible materials are actually safe because the way they are installed means that the fire does not spread.
In fact, they will prove that the judgment in the desktop study is correct.
On the contrary, the test may find that a large number of buildings must quickly strip off the insulation and outer cladding.
Because we don\'t know, the government is doing tests.
However, it is worth noting that there is a curiosity about these tests.
If any material combination fails to pass the test, it will automatically invalidate any desktop study that concludes to the contrary with similar material configurations.
I explained that there were some changes, but the desktop study we saw included the following language: \"If the test author obtained conflicting evidence, the assessment would be withdrawn without conditions, and notify the company entrusted to study in writing.
In the event of a subsequent test evaluation of the building, the evaluation will be invalid because the actual test data is considered to be preferred to the opinion expressed.
\"As a result, these tests may give the building owner a cladding system that does not meet the fire safety standards --
For example, they may find themselves unable to insure them.
People have been nervous about whether the government should force private companies to test the cladding on their buildings. But the knock-
Through insurance companies, the impact of these fire tests may force various buildings to be tested
And the dramatic reshapingon their own.
Custom message
