Grenfell Tower had been reclad with ACM panels (Wikipedia)
The BRE is in the process of testing how combinations of different types of aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding panels with different types of insulation behave in a fire, DCLG secretary Sajid Javid told parliament at the end of last week.
The more extensive testing comes in the wake of limited combustibility tests on cladding from local authority and housing association tower blocks after the devastating Grenfell Tower fire.
The 24-storey block in west London had been reclad in ACM panels filled with polyethylene. The speed at which the fire spread on the outside of the building has sparked fears about the fire risks in other similarly clad blocks.
In his statement Javid said: “We now believe that no more than 208 local authority and housing association residential blocks over 18 metres tall have been fitted with aluminium composite material cladding.
“189 of these have had cladding samples tested by the Building Research Establishment, they’ve been tested by proxy or they have already had taken their cladding down. None of them have passed the limited combustibility test.
“Samples from a further 12 towers have been submitted this week and they are now being tested.
“The BRE has yet to see samples from seven towers, all of them managed by housing associations. A month after the tests began, this is simply unacceptable.”
Javid said that the combined ACM panel/insulation testing had been instigated on the advice of the of the Independent Expert Advisory Panel on Building Safety:
“An Explanatory Note, setting out the process and the timetable for further advice, will be published very shortly.”
Results are expected this week.
Comments
Comments are closed.
Hi,
I am not sure if they are doing the right test or not?
I understand it is a caloriic test which measures the energy that comes from a material when burnt in a 100% oxygen invironment which does not replicate real life conditions.
Perhaps it is a design issue by creating a flue around a structure rather than a material issue?
I believe this is not so straight forward as we would like it to be?
W Peters
I realise that the government has concerns over Local Authority and Housing Association developments which have been clad with aluminium composite material panels, is there the same urgency being shown towards private developments that have used the same design and materials? After all human beings live in those apartments as well and can be exposed to the same risks
Paul Constable, 26th July 2017
David Sammmons puts it straight The ‘Building Regulations’ and the associated ‘Approved Document’ are clear and unequivocal:- No more arguments required just get on with the manslaughter charges and stop trying to sweep it under the carpet.
The ‘Building Regulations’ and the associated ‘Approved Document’ are clear and unequivocal:-
The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.
In a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility.
– Does the external wall of the building adequately resist the spread of fire over the wall?
– Is the insulation product, filler material etc. of limited combustibility?
Why have so many, been getting it so wrong, so often, for so long!?