Towering inferno - dangers of high rise living

I think the circumstances with Grenfell are pretty concerning. This sort of cladding is a relatively recent invention, under 10 years or so. It's very widespread, having been used in thousands of new homes, especially apartments in Australia. In Melbourne at the time of the Docklands fire, half of newly constructed apartments (about 1000) in 2014 had this cladding. Who knows how many since. If I owned one of these apartments, I'd be very worried to live in or own one of these places. I could see this stuff being outlawed, because in all of the fires worldwide, Dubai, Baku etc the fires have pretty much engulfed whole buildings in minutes, spanning multiple floors.

Usually in apartments, fires are contained within a flat or floor (which is why the "stay put" advice exists, it's almost unheard of for fires to move between floors). The outside of buildings typically aren't combustible and so once a fire burns up the inside of a flat, it's got nowhere to go because there are big concrete slabs separating each storey. Unfortunately, this sandwich cladding seems to allow a fire to pass very quickly from panel to panel up the side of a building, and it enters apartments from the outside in. There are obviously other factors like the lack of fire alarms, the fact it happened while people were sleeping, but some of the fires associated with this cladding have caused whole buildings to catch alight in minutes.

For most high rises this just isn't going to be an issue, you almost certainly won't be stranded in a fire in most cases (the stay put advice is well tested and for an older style block it's tried and true, as fires usually spread much slower than in Grenfell. Stay put advice means you don't have people panicking and running around the building possibly suffocating), but with this new cladding, boy... I'd be moving. I think the stay put advice might need a rethink too in these buildings.

 

As an example of how quickly these panels catch:

That is just utterly terrifying. And these panels are all over Australia. This stuff is insanely flammable. Even if the Grenfell tower had fire alarms and the advice to get out, I'm still not sure people would have escaped. Many people died even on the floors firefighters evacuated, because the smoke was just too fast and too thick.

 

No, stay where you are is absolutely common policy. For the most part, it's a very reliable method and is actually safer than trying to escape, which often leads to people becoming stuck or exposed to smoke. In a dark, smoky stairwell you can only go maybe 5-10 floors before passing out. In a normal building, fires tend to stay within a single apartment or on a single floor at a minimum, due to the concrete between floors. Years of fires in apartment blocks has proven the stay put method to be the best option, until now.

The Grenfell fire was unusual because the fire didn't travel like a "normal" fire, it went up the outside of the building because of the highly combustible cladding. This stuff is a pretty recent invention, so policy hasn't caught up. Clearly if you live in a building with this cladding, the normal rules don't apply. The fire covered half the building in minutes, the whole block was alight by the time people woke up.

 

I'm surprised this cladding hadn't already been banned after the numerous cases where sides of buildings have been engulfed in flames in mere minutes.
I think everyone would want to see this stuff outlawed ASAP after the recent London incident.

 

The issue unfortunately is not as simple to resolve as banning a product. The product itself is fine where it is used appropriately but the issue is where it has been used in inappropriate circumstances on medium and high rise buildings where it is not compliant with the building code.

 

I don't think it's being used in inappropriate circumstances, it is literally building cladding designed to go on a building, either inside or outside, which is what has been happening. It's just as flammable on a small building anyway.

 

How long before countries around the globe have national databases documenting the use of flammable cladding, sprinkler systems, and fire escapes in all buildings over a certain height?

With this data being used to give every building a safety fire rating, accessible to the public via desktop and mobile app.

Contrast the long term risks of building asbestos exposure, and the legal difficulty in attributing cause of cancer, to buildfire fire safety risks, that are immediate and highly visible.

Post Grenfell, building investors and owners, building managers and building occupants at low probability, high risk of catastrophic impact from fire and smoke, are likely to quickly come face to face with the realities of where they are living (or sleeping or working) via any changes insurance companies and banks make as a result of this horrific man made tragedy.

No need to wait for the outcome of any inquiries to make the regulatory, code and legislative changes required.

Many of those that again procrastinate using snails pace BAU change management methods on this issue, risk paying a much higher personal, political and professional price, than anything they've ever encountered to date.

 

This is the hidden potential killer in Australian buildings

MICHAEL O'CONNOR: This product is rife. It's used in buildings throughout Australia. All the information we're receiving, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne, every capital city, we believe this product is used in many buildings and particularly in high rise buildings.

MADELEINE MORRIS: It shouldn't be. Building regulations prohibit the use of Alucobest cladding on high rise buildings. It is allowed on low rise buildings and that's why it's imported into Australia and easy to buy.

 

Unbelievable. What next - filling sprinkler systems with kerosene?!

 

Its interesting. It took fire crews 6 mins to get on site, but some crews still managed to scale 20+ levels.
Was a report of family making it down from the 21st floor, wife was heavily pregnant too, with 2 young children.

So I wonder how much of it was following terrible advice to stay put.

 

I read about this in the SMH. Two families managed to survive by using lots of water.
Anatomy of London's Grenfell high-rise horror

But there were more survivors, too, emerging from the blaze in the arms of firefighters.

Natasha Elcock, trapped on the 12th floor with her six-year-old daughter, flooded the bathroom and kept her flat damp. After 90 minutes the fire crew told them to get out but they couldn't – the door of the flat was too hot to open.

"The door was buckling and the windows bubbling and cracking, it was terrifying," she said.

Fire crews rescued her at 3am. She stepped over a body on the way out.

Schools inspector Marcio Gomes, 38, was told to stay put but by 4.30am the fire had engulfed the whole building, and fire crews were unable to make it up to them.

He wrapped his family up in wet towels and said, "There's no turning back, we have to go," he told the Sun.

"As soon as we opened the door all the smoke came in. We had no choice because the fire started coming in through the windows. We had to go down the stairs.

"You couldn't see anything. We didn't see people, we just felt people. We were just climbing over bodies."

So my takeaway... if you get in a situation where you can't get out, what I would do is completely flood my place with water. Get it all over all surfaces.
Wrap yourself in extremely absorbent, completely drenched towels. Get everybody with you to do the same thing. Try to wear cotton clothing, head to toe (if you have time) and drench that all in water.
I'd then start praying to a god (even though I am completely not religious).

I saw how water stops things burning for an etremely long time by watching an episode of mythbusters. A soaked cotton t-shirt takes nearly an eternity to burn, if you were to compare it to a dry t-shirt.

 

More specifically: Here you go
ALUCOBOND® PE - Alucobond Architectural
ALUCOBOND® PE - Alucobond Architectural
http://alucobond.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Alucobond-Tech-Data-Alucobond-Architectural.pdf
ALUCOBOND® PE - Alucobond Architectural

http://alucobond.com.au/wp-content/...oved-modified-final-31.05.2017-web-upload.pdf (p16 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CLASSIFICATIONS - PE product is completely blank for the Australia and USA Classification field - Singapore has "Approved for external wall cladding up to 10m height")

http://alucobond.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Alucobond-Processing-Technical-Data.pdf
Gallery - Alucobond Architectural (filter by PE product)
Jumers Casino and Hotel, Illinois - Alucobond Architectural (Take a gamble by staying here)
Puma Energy - Alucobond Architectural (Service Station in Victoria AU: No fire risk?)
The Opera, Copenhagen - Alucobond Architectural (At least it's on the waterfront)
Seepark Hotel Lindner - Alucobond Architectural (I would not be relaxed sleeping there: Visions of the IT Crowd SeaPark Fire episode)

Alucobond Architectural - HVG (the NSW Turrella based Australian exclusive distributor of Alcubond)

Can anyone can find overt warnings in any of the above about using the PE product in buildings higher than approx. 10m?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/808e034b1f5948b97285a0a342b2637e

.....

......

.....

 

Manufacturer issued warning over panels reportedly used on London tower

Maker of panels at London Tower cautioned on high-rise fire risk

Reynobond Reynolux Electronic Binder
The above links appears to aggregate all of the documents about the Reynobond products.
Was yet, I have been unable to find the 2016 document that Reuters refers to and that is being quoted about worldwide today on the arconic website, or any other reference to the 10m and 30m advice in any shape or form in any of the extensive brochures and documents on this website.

So until anyone can actually come up with this document that other sites are claiming Reuters has seen, or even find a Reuters article that makes this claim, I'm making an early call of a possible False Fact that has been planted in the media about this particular alleged Arconic document.

 

As per others I recalled a similar incident a few years back with some overseas cheaper imported products used also

Non-compliant cladding fuelled Melbourne apartment tower fire, MFB finds

External cladding used in the construction of the Lacrosse Apartments in Melbourne’s Docklands precinct has been found to have fuelled a fire that broke out last year, causing more than $2 million worth of damages.

Following a review of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade’s (MFB) report on the incident, which found that the cladding had not been tested to comply with Australian standards, the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) has launched an investigation into the conduct of the apartments’ builder, L U Simon, and building surveyor.

The fire began on a balcony of the eighth floor of the Lacrosse Apartments on November 25, 2014, and spread quickly to the top of the building. All building residents were successfully evacuated, and the MFB acknowledged that the building’s sprinklers, smoke detection and early emergency warning systems operated well above their designed capability.

The Alucobest aluminium cladding, however, was tested by the CSIRO to be non-compliant with combustibility requirements for a high-rise building.

“The external cladding material on this building did not to the degree necessary avoid the spread of fire as required by the Building Code of Australia,” MFB Chief Officer Peter Rau said.

Melbourne apartment fire exposes non-compliant building materials


Fire raced up 13 storeys of a Melbourne apartment building in part because the outside wall was not clad in fire-resistant sheeting, the city's Metropolitan Fire Brigade says in a report.

The fire, started by a cigarette on an eighth-floor balcony of the Charter Hall-developed Lacrosse apartment building last year, raced up to the 21st floor in as little as 10 minutes and stopped only because it reached the top of the building, the MFB report said.

London tower fire could happen here: Australian buildings cloaked in flammable cladding



Apparently same issue in a lot of Dubai (2016 fire) High Rise Buildings

 

Found it from googling

quoted in the ABC post I linked in my last post

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Our fire solutions_BR36EN_012017.pdf

See above and attached where the 30m and 10m are in a small diagram with the wording below

and under the wording

 

A comprehensive March 2016, 44 page Australian document on Insulated Panels for Building Façades in Australia from a Company spruiking their FIREsafe insulated panels.

https://www.kingspan.com/au/en-au/p...el-facade-systems/resources/firesafe-brochure

 

Though, the accounts of people who did escape later on say they were walking over bodies, so trying to evacuate didn't actually work for those poor victims.

 

Legacy of High-Rise Fire Risks in Dubai - IFSEC Global | Security and Fire News and Resources

The warnings have been overtly out there for quite some time.
This is not a new issue.
Grenfell has just tragically brought the issue into the very public global limelight.

 

I don't understand what your point is in regards to fire crews arriving in 6 minutes and making the 20th floor? They would have had full PPE and breathing apparatus on so making the 20th floor up the fire stairs wouldn't have been an issue. Structural collapse would've been the main concern.

The issue would've been getting people down through the smoke without respiratory protection. It is very easy in hindsite to say that the first arriving crew should've ordered a full evacuation. Just remember that these crews were following standard operating procedures and couldn't possibly have know the building would become fully involved in fire that quickly. Firies are trained to react to incidents in a certain way which also probably assumes certain building codes have been adhered to.

As a result of this incident I'm sure firefighters around the world will all be aware of this type of cladding, what it looks like, signs it has been used, how it responds to fire etc and may be trained and do things differently in the future.