Author Topic: Fire in UK apartment building supposedly caused by oldrefrigerator that exploded  (Read 48193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tronde

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 307
  • Country: no
Been there, done that.

It's called "asbestos". Asbestos shingles last forever. They are fireproof and virtually indestructible.

No, asbestos is illegal. You use mineral wool that is something completely different instead of the plastic foam and aluminium sheets as weather protection.
Asbestos may be illegal in Europe but it's still legal in other countries. It was used in the UK up to the end of the 90s and can still be found in many old buildings.

Yes, it is found in older buildings. That is not considered a severe problem as long as it is left alone. In the US "new use" of asbestos is banned, and from what I can see, it has not been used as thermal insulation on the outside of buildings, so it should be banned for that use. They are allowed to use sheets made of asbestos-cement as weather protection, but that is mostly a problem when the product is manufactured.

The Grenfell Tower could have used mineral wool and aluminium sheets instead of the plastic foam and aluminium shees for almost no extra cost.  I have read about GBP 5000 extra.
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6923
  • Country: ca
The list of errors and negligence around this disaster is amazing.
The building has no sprinkler system! Politics, cost, inconvenience and us EE's here know this is madness.

The cladding, seems to be failing safety tests and reminds me of Swissair Flight 111 disaster where the plastics technically passed the (glow) flame test but actually reignited afterwards, very scary.

The Hotpoint fridge model is known and I've seen defrost resistors fail and ignite the interior of a fridge. It seems fairly common.

OK that's three serious screw ups.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10576
  • Country: gb
(1)...Barrels toxicity
If my (limited) understanding is correct. They were basically safe and relatively non-highly toxic. Because they did not have ALL the ingredients to make deadly Sarin, and they would have needed to be correctly processed together, to make Sarin.
So it was ok for those barrels to be there (ignoring politics/Israel).

No, this is nasty stuff to handle. It's an organophosphate and has similar toxicity to  organophosphate insecticides and will almost certainly be bio-accumulative in the same way and by the same mechanisms. The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists organophosphates as very highly acutely toxic to bees, wildlife, and humans

It's fine sealed in a barrel, it's not fine when you're trying to clean up a site and everybody has denied, or deliberately concealed, that it is present. If it had been a common, equally toxic, industrial chemical it would have been dealt with properly. It's rôle as a chemical weapon precursor clearly influenced all involved to conceal its presence and lead to unacceptable exposures of people and subsequent health consequences.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline cdevTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Mineral wool would not have burnt - certainly none of the hazards typically encountered would be enough to get aluminum hot enough to burn. But plastic foam easily could.


>>The Grenfell Tower could have used mineral wool and aluminium sheets instead of the plastic foam and aluminium shees for almost no extra cost.  I have read about GBP 5000 extra.


You do know that this specific Reynobond cladding, despite what the UK government says, was not banned in the UK on tall buildings. It should be banned everywhere.

People need to speak up to prevent this insane race to the bottom on deregulation.
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline cdevTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Its just inconceivable to me that any large building built within the last 100 years would not have a sprinkler system.


In California, no sprinkler system=no certificate of occupancy. So, no legal business. No rent can be collected or requested without a valid certificate of occupancy.

So, no more money until its fixed and inspected and a certificate issued. 

Fire kills people. So this is important.
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4527
  • Country: gb
(1)...Barrels toxicity
If my (limited) understanding is correct. They were basically safe and relatively non-highly toxic. Because they did not have ALL the ingredients to make deadly Sarin, and they would have needed to be correctly processed together, to make Sarin.
So it was ok for those barrels to be there (ignoring politics/Israel).

No, this is nasty stuff to handle. It's an organophosphate and has similar toxicity to  organophosphate insecticides and will almost certainly be bio-accumulative in the same way and by the same mechanisms. The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists organophosphates as very highly acutely toxic to bees, wildlife, and humans

It's fine sealed in a barrel, it's not fine when you're trying to clean up a site and everybody has denied, or deliberately concealed, that it is present. If it had been a common, equally toxic, industrial chemical it would have been dealt with properly. It's rôle as a chemical weapon precursor clearly influenced all involved to conceal its presence and lead to unacceptable exposures of people and subsequent health consequences.

I guess that if the substance(s) are too dangerous (if the plane crashes), they should use alternative methods. Such as ships or road transport etc. Assuming the alternative methods are safe enough.

I remember when the US was decommissioning, huge quantities of Chemical weapons, from Syria. It caused extremely major difficulties, as to how to safely transport "live" Chemical weapons, and protect them against Terrorist ambushes/hijacks etc.
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6923
  • Country: ca
Its just inconceivable to me that any large building built within the last 100 years would not have a sprinkler system.
In California, no sprinkler system=no certificate of occupancy. So, no legal business. No rent can be collected or requested without a valid certificate of occupancy.
So, no more money until its fixed and inspected and a certificate issued. 
Fire kills people. So this is important.

Grenfell is a 1974 building and that was building code back then. No sprinklers in a 24-storey building  :palm:
Retrofitting sprinklers seems to be avoided at all cost, it would be a lot of work adding piping through cement. So much political noise about the cladding, yet who kaiboshed this?

With electrical/electronics gear, the rule of thumb I follow is "If I touch it (change parts, renovate, upgrade), it has to meet today's safety codes".
Doesn't matter whether it's someone's house, building, antique radio etc.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 26751
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Its just inconceivable to me that any large building built within the last 100 years would not have a sprinkler system.
In California, no sprinkler system=no certificate of occupancy. So, no legal business. No rent can be collected or requested without a valid certificate of occupancy.
So, no more money until its fixed and inspected and a certificate issued. 
Fire kills people. So this is important.
Grenfell is a 1974 building and that was building code back then. No sprinklers in a 24-storey building  :palm:
If it was build using older building code it probably would have collapsed like a building called Ronan Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point. I recall reading something about using a recipy for building a 4 story building for a much higher building which caused a similar collapse but that isn't in the Wikipedia article for Ronan Point.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4527
  • Country: gb
Its just inconceivable to me that any large building built within the last 100 years would not have a sprinkler system.
In California, no sprinkler system=no certificate of occupancy. So, no legal business. No rent can be collected or requested without a valid certificate of occupancy.
So, no more money until its fixed and inspected and a certificate issued. 
Fire kills people. So this is important.

Grenfell is a 1974 building and that was building code back then. No sprinklers in a 24-storey building  :palm:
Retrofitting sprinklers seems to be avoided at all cost, it would be a lot of work adding piping through cement. So much political noise about the cladding, yet who kaiboshed this?

With electrical/electronics gear, the rule of thumb I follow is "If I touch it (change parts, renovate, upgrade), it has to meet today's safety codes".
Doesn't matter whether it's someone's house, building, antique radio etc.

I think that one of the big mistakes that was made for this building, was NOT upgrading it to have a sprinkler system, by law.
(Without worrying about the exact height), there should be a law in the UK, so that ANY building, normally occupied by many people (i.e. possibly excluding empty and/or storage only buildings), at or above four floors, MUST have sprinkler systems, retroactively fitted to them.
Presumably/hopefully such a conclusion will come about, after the public enquiry.

N.B. I don't have the figures to hand, or experience/know-how, to calculate the exact number of floors where this MUST be a requirement, and/or statistics, to confirm it is the right course of action.

Some people have commented (elsewhere), on the lines of it is difficult to have a sprinkler system, in a very rough, social housing environment. Because of vandalism, poor maintenance and the people who live there. Objecting to it being fitted, because of the big hassle factor. E.g. Having to move out while such a system is fitted.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 26751
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
I think that one of the big mistakes that was made for this building, was NOT upgrading it to have a sprinkler system, by law.
(Without worrying about the exact height), there should be a law in the UK, so that ANY building, normally occupied by many people (i.e. possibly excluding empty and/or storage only buildings), at or above four floors, MUST have sprinkler systems, retroactively fitted to them.
And why do you think a sprinkler system would work? It will take lots of maintenance and when it goes off it will cause a huge amount of damage to people's property. It also won't help if the fire comes from the outside.

Quote
N.B. I don't have the figures to hand, or experience/know-how, to calculate the exact number of floors where this MUST be a requirement, and/or statistics, to confirm it is the right course of action.
The right course of action is to keep the amount of flammable substances to a minimum and seperate a building into sections divided by doors which slow down a fire. In case of the Grenfell tower I assume the cladding is solely responsible for spreading the fire so far and so quickly. I've seen fires in apartment buildings over here and it is rare for these to reach the apartments next to it. But then again the outside cladding is made of metal, glass, bricks and concrete.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 08:40:18 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7990
  • Country: gb
I think that one of the big mistakes that was made for this building, was NOT upgrading it to have a sprinkler system, by law.
(Without worrying about the exact height), there should be a law in the UK, so that ANY building, normally occupied by many people (i.e. possibly excluding empty and/or storage only buildings), at or above four floors, MUST have sprinkler systems, retroactively fitted to them.
And why do you think a sprinkler system would work? It will take lots of maintenance and when it goes off it will cause a huge amount of damage to people's property. It also won't help if the fire comes from the outside.

How will it not help? At the minimum it'll slow the ingress.
 

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4527
  • Country: gb
I think that one of the big mistakes that was made for this building, was NOT upgrading it to have a sprinkler system, by law.
(Without worrying about the exact height), there should be a law in the UK, so that ANY building, normally occupied by many people (i.e. possibly excluding empty and/or storage only buildings), at or above four floors, MUST have sprinkler systems, retroactively fitted to them.
And why do you think a sprinkler system would work? It will take lots of maintenance and when it goes off it will cause a huge amount of damage to people's property.

On reading about this tower fire, recently. I remember reading that it is thought a sprinkler system would have kept the fire under control long enough for the residents to escape, and may have even saved the building. But because it was read somewhere on the internet, I DON'T know how reliable that comment(s) were.

The sprinkler systems law, is already partly the case in the UK (if I understand correctly).

ALL new buildings (I'm not sure of definition. Maybe homes only, or businesses as well) in Wales and all new buildings above a certain height/floor limit, since dates I don't know exactly, MUST have sprinkler systems, installed by law, in the UK.

I'm guessing. But as a result of this terrible tower fire disaster. I expect that the laws will be tightened up, and sprinkler systems, will be mandatory, even for older buildings, above certain height or number of floors.

I.e. There will probably be a whole bunch of changes to the laws, on sprinkler systems, external cladding, etc etc.
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11790
  • Country: us
I think that one of the big mistakes that was made for this building, was NOT upgrading it to have a sprinkler system, by law.

This particular building was made entirely of concrete, with concrete floors and dividing walls. Any fire within one of the flats as originally designed would have been contained by the concrete and would have spread slowly, if at all, giving people time to escape the immediate area and time for the fire brigade to put out the fire.

What seems to have undone that design is the addition of flammable cladding on the outside. No cladding, no spread of fire.
 

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4527
  • Country: gb
I think that one of the big mistakes that was made for this building, was NOT upgrading it to have a sprinkler system, by law.

This particular building was made entirely of concrete, with concrete floors and dividing walls. Any fire within one of the flats as originally designed would have been contained by the concrete and would have spread slowly, if at all, giving people time to escape the immediate area and time for the fire brigade to put out the fire.

What seems to have undone that design is the addition of flammable cladding on the outside. No cladding, no spread of fire.

If a single failure of something, is going to result in the deaths of a huge number of people, then that would be VERY dangerous.

E.g. That is why we DON'T have big jumbo jets, with SINGLE engines. Because if that engine broke at the wrong time (such as while over the middle of the Atlantic, or during take-off), it could potentially kill hundreds of people.

So if the cladding failure (a single failure, whereby it is flammable, rather than safe in fires), is enough to then kill a huge number of people. It would be much better, if there were at least two failures which were needed for it to go disastrously wrong.

I.e. it would be best/better if both the cladding were fire-proof AND there were sprinklers to hopefully put out the flaming fridge/freezer, before it has a chance to set the whole tower block alight.

Then there are other missing safety features, such as at least two independent (fire escape usable) stair cases, and a working/decent fire alarm system, and probably many other things.

My understanding is that despite the fact the building was mainly concrete, the smoke/fumes (from various sources, such as furniture/cladding/peoples-stuff etc) are an extremely bad part of fires. Which themselves (the smoke), can kill lots of people and/or prevent/hinder them from easily using the stairs to escape.
E.g. Carbon Monoxide.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 09:44:06 pm by MK14 »
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2578
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Funny you mention single engined bypass turbofan planes, there, up until recently, has been INCREDIBLY heavy restrictions on even two engined planes going over the oceans. This is why there used to be the engine planes, with a third engine usually mounted in the tail. Now there are less restrictions, not to mention planes like the 787 making low demand long haul flights feasible.

I think this is the Wendover Productions video on that topic.

I forget who I am sometimes, but then I remember that it's probably not worth remembering.
EEVBlog IRC Admin - Join us on irc.austnet.org #eevblog
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6678
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
My understanding is that despite the fact the building was mainly concrete, the smoke/fumes (from various sources, such as furniture/cladding/peoples-stuff etc) are an extremely bad part of fires. Which themselves (the smoke), can kill lots of people and/or prevent/hinder them from easily using the stairs to escape.
E.g. Carbon Monoxide.

There's also talk that some of the cladding insulation was based on polyisocyanurate, which when it burns released cyanide gas, so if the smoke and CO didn't kill them then this did.

Absolutely insane. This will be a case study in engineering ethics for years to come.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline Yansi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3893
  • Country: 00
  • STM32, STM8, AVR, 8051
Sorry if already mentioned here, but heard in radio this morning, that the UK  evacuated people from similar buildings.  :palm:
 

Offline stj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2153
  • Country: gb
yes, they never miss an opertunity.

btw, fitting sprinklers in a tall building is very difficult.
a sprinkler system needs water and the tanks are on the roof usually on a building designed for it.
another way is heavy water tanks on the ground that are pressurised by gas cylinders.

because you cant trust electric pumps incase the power fails.
and there is not enough natural pressure to get the water much past the 10th floor even for normal use.
i'll be devils advocate here, and add that they recently reduced the lift pressure on a lot of the pumps in london to reduce maintainance costs.  :palm:
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1093
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
And why do you think a sprinkler system would work? It will take lots of maintenance and when it goes off it will cause a huge amount of damage to people's property. It also won't help if the fire comes from the outside.
That's so wrong on may levels. Firstly, stats : there has never been a multiple fatality fire in a building fitted with a working sprinkler system.

Sprinkler systems take no maintenance, apart from vandalism which applies to everything.

If the "sprinkler goes off" it's because there is a fucking big fire directly underneath. It's nothing like the movies.. A fire "coming from the outside" kills just as well as fire started inside. Have you any clue how fire propagates? Hint : radiated heat. The main danger to safe evacuation is smoke, not flame.

BTW, when the fire service arrive, they view the property as written off already. Their primary role is to save life and stop the fire spreading to other properties.

I can see why we don't get better safety standards, if the average punter is so clueless.  All they ask is "how much more tax will I pay?"
Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1093
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
btw, fitting sprinklers in a tall building is very difficult.
a sprinkler system needs water and the tanks are on the roof usually on a building designed for it.
another way is heavy water tanks on the ground that are pressurised by gas cylinders.

Yes, it's 2017, we still haven't figured out how to do install internal plumbing yet.  |O |O |O

I know, let put swimming pools by tower blocks, so people can just into them. You know, like in the movies.  :-DD
Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16272
  • Country: za
Here they dropped distribution pressures because there has been zero pipeline maintenance in the system aside from repair as it fails and some small sections ( with the largest leaks) being replaced with HDPE pull in place piping. This was to reduce the non metered loss from 50% to 30%, as basically every pipe leaks, every tap point is rotted near to nothing and the valve stem seals are often a century past the replace by date.

One reason I put in a 0.2 micron filter is this, as the regular daily water cut off scours the piping system, depositing all the asbestos mud into the water as it scours the pipes coming back to full, and I do not want to drink that sludge. Filters go brown pretty fast even without this scouring, there is a lot of sediment and junk in those century old pipes, that has accumulated through the years as sections were replaced and mud got into the system. Still has lead pipes in places, and a lot of the copper piping was lead soldered.

The pull in place was done so there was no need to remove and dispose of asbestos cement pipe, just hydraulic crack it with the tunnelling machine as the new pipe is pulled through the bore, and then cut down at each customer tap and drill into the pipe with a clamp on tap. They just marked all the fire hydrants in the affected areas with a blue painted top to indicate the presence of the HDPE pipe, so the fire brigade knows there is a lower maximum flow rate available on these points, as there is a smaller 4 inch pipe instead of the old 6 inch fibre cement pipe.

As to sprinkler systems, there are multiple reasons for installing them, either the height of the building, the occupancy profile or what is stored or manufactured there. Whatever the reason, you will have the same arrangement, a Christmas tree ( or a few on larger buildings, which is the name for the control block that does flow detection, alarm activation of the water bell,  non return valving and a booster connection along with a draw point into the large water mains) that pressurises the piping, the pipe tree and isolation valves to shut the parts off for maintenance, so you can do service a floor at a time and still have the system armed, the pipes into each section ( always exposed red painted steel pipe, with clamped sections for easy pipe section replacement) and finally the sprinkler heads, with the detector element ( either fusible metal block or glass frangible plug) and a spray nozzle in there to act as control units.

Larger buildings you will have either a small header tank on the roof to provide back up pressure so there is water in the system long enough for the fire brigade to arrive and provide boost water pressure, and in some cases large tanks on the property and boost pumps as well, either electric with a backup generator or simple diesel pumps alone.

At the very least the building should have has hose reels per floor, with hose pipe at the regulatory 30m length, and such that any 2 can be used on any fire.  that these were either not there, or not working, is a direct reflection on the building owners, as this is a part they are required to maintain.
 

Offline stj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2153
  • Country: gb
each foor will have a dry-riser outlet near the lift - inside a locked steel door.
the only people with keys are the council-maintenance people and firebrigade.

and that's it - no sprinklers,hoses or zoned fire alarm even.
i have been in many of these blocks - i grew up among them.
the only way the residents could fight a fire would be to piss on it or throw sourcepans of water at it!!

another little thing, the blocks use big steel communal waste bins - and sometimes kids set the contents on fire - seen it half a dozen times.
these bins are generally up against the outside wall, or just inside an open section on the ground floor.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10576
  • Country: gb
each foor will have a dry-riser outlet near the lift - inside a locked steel door.
the only people with keys are the council-maintenance people and firebrigade.

Not quite. Firstly, although the dry riser cabinets are locked (with a service key, not a 'proper' lock) they have breakable glass access panels. If the building has floors above 60m from the Fire Brigade vehicle access level than it has to have wet risers, with 1500 l/m pumping capacity pumps (one standby, one duty) and a tanked supply of water good for at least 45 minutes duration (67,500 litres) for each wet riser. Bigger floor area requires more dry or wet risers - I won't bore you with the figures.

and that's it - no sprinklers,hoses or zoned fire alarm even.
i have been in many of these blocks - i grew up among them.
the only way the residents could fight a fire would be to piss on it or throw sourcepans of water at it!!

Static fire hose reels are not required but are in fact quite common, strangely more common in older buildings than new. Some councils may require them as part of planning permission. I reckon that Brighton does (or did) as I've seen them in every block of flats in the town city. London is a bit more variable, but I've seen them in about 1/2 the multi-storey office buildings I've worked in.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 26751
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
And why do you think a sprinkler system would work? It will take lots of maintenance and when it goes off it will cause a huge amount of damage to people's property. It also won't help if the fire comes from the outside.
That's so wrong on may levels. Firstly, stats : there has never been a multiple fatality fire in a building fitted with a working sprinkler system.

Sprinkler systems take no maintenance, apart from vandalism which applies to everything.
And what is more fun to a bunch of teenagers then to activate the sprinkler system? And how about (slightly) mentally disturbed inhabitants who set it off and soak the homes below? Sprinkler systems suck for appartment buildings.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline vodka

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: es
The most strange is these builidings hasn't one  or two fire extinguishers for floor.In uk , is not it mandatory for  the buildings?
 
 
The following users thanked this post: cdev


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf