Cladding

[johnroe]

No, no. Patronising is when you talk down to someone.

They didn't pump concrete 25 storeys up, they don't now. You fill a massive big hopper and sling it up by crane, then open the chute and gravity does the rest. You really are out of your depth here.

And you're off on the same meaningless tangent. It doesn't matter how strong the columns are if people die(as I said about fifty posts ago). If there was an apocalypse and everyone in building was obliterated, would you be there smoking your pipe(excuse embellishments), and saying 'dam fine columns those'. We've witnessed from ever angle and at different time speeds, what patching and bodging led to. I'll email the architect if you want!

[ik9000]

And you're off on the same meaningless tangent. It doesn't matter how strong the columns are if people die(as I said about fifty posts ago). If there was an apocalypse and everyone in building was obliterated, would you be there smoking your pipe(excuse embellishments), and saying 'dam fine columns those'. We've witnessed from ever angle and at different time speeds, what patching and bodging led to. I'll email the architect if you want!

Oh, it's a meaningless tangent now? Ok. Let's refresh our minds as to how we got here.

Wasn't the cladding on Grenfell Tower for decorative purposes. So really cladding isn't necessary.

It is funny(in a bad way); they have these old blocks, crumbling and rotting internally. Inappropriate safety regulations and equipment, and very overcrowded blocks not helping in event of fire. Yet every decade they tart them up in the latest fashionable way, abstract paint job or external cladding. Meanwhile they fill every available space in the city with poorly constructed houses.

First you start by claiming that cladding was only added for the appearance. And that the block was crumbling apart. And you also claim that they're also filling every available space with poor construction. So old and new; it's all rubbish, and the only reason people are changing it is for aesthetic reasons.

the real problem here is you cannot keep buildings standing that had a life span for reasons of degradation. They are out of date in every way and totally unsuitable for families. Knock them all down and give people affordable housing.

Despite claiming that new-build construction is poorly constructed in your first post, you then go on to say that old buildings are being kept beyond their life span and should be knocked down.

If you take a look at the before and after refurbishment pictures. You can see why the building was covered up in aluminium gentrification. They were scheduled to be knocked down decades ago and the councils are embarrassed by them. The internal steel that keeps the integrity of the concrete intact has corroded. The concrete crystalline structure has degraded over time. I doubt the hidden inner frame is still able to support the weight, as when they were built.

These blocks were always about 'warehousing' people, waiting for decent accommodation. They should have been pulled down, not tarted up. It's the chronic housing shortage, especially for families that is the problem here(and that's for another thread, because that's also complicated. Should houses be seen as homes, or financial investment?)

Here you make some further sweeping statemens about why you think the cladding was simply to be decorative and assert that the concrete was no longer fit for purpose - lost its integrity no less at a crystalline level!

Etc etc, I could go on, I haven't even got past page 4 of the thread. Far from being irrelevant, I have consistently, repeatedly, pointed out why you're incorrect in your thinking about the Grenfell Tower; its construction, and the suitability of the tower to be kept in use, with suitable improvements to its energy use and exterior. To recap:

The structural frame is absolutely sound. Defects with localised cladding panels (the original concrete ones exposed to the weather) do not comprise a structural deficiency. Far from being degraded, everybody with any knowledge has praised the original concrete columns and core for holding the tower up when everyone who looked at it burning thought it only a matter of time until it collapsed. (and you can read accounts from the fire officers and building control officers on the day who were having serious conversations at the time as to whether to evacuate the fire crews for that very reason).

The reason to install the new cladding was not one thing, but several: to reduce any cold bridging; to allow installation of new windows for better thermal performance; to improve the thermal insulation of the walls to lower heat loss. Believe me, if it were solely aesthetic the TMO would not have bothered. They were like that (Tight-as). No, rather it was driven by a desire to lower the heating costs since the heating was from a central boiler system and pumped to all units, rather than each flat having its own boiler. Therefore reducing heat loss can have a tangible reduction in the block heating demand and costs (and help lower the heating charges for everyone - which is an admirable aim).

Anyway, whatever the reason, the decision to retain the sound, and perfectly adequately performing concrete structure was a valid decision.

All of this is not tangential or irrelevant; it is core to the arguments you yourself first put forward, and reminding you of your own inconsistency in this thread. You claimed Grenfell Tower was so poor it had to be demolished. Not true. You claimed it was degraded and failing. Not true. You claimed the changes were only made to cover over the problems. Not true. You claim old buildings should be bulldozed to make way for new ones. Not true, and new stuff is more stingy and meagre than old ones. Then you find some clips about shonky prefab construction in Glasgow and insinuate that Grenfell is therefore the same because you found one part quote mentioning the word "precast". Again not true, and I've shown you several times why that's wrong too. The structural loadbearing frame is insitu concrete. It matters because you keep implying Grenfell = the same as other rubbish prefab construction of the Ronan-Point era. It really really is not. It's a much better construction. The fact the smouldering hulk is still standing is testament to how well it was built.

All of my posts are being very consistent, and sticking to rebutting the very points you have raised, rather than meandering off in different directions each time someone replies with something I don't like. It is actually very relevant to show how your arguments so far are littered with things that are demonstrably inaccurate and untrue. And do you see that it highlights how you are happy to make bold statements about things you don't understand? And it's for that reason that I also call into question your wider political grumblings that you're sporadically dropping in. I just don't think you know what you're on about. You certainly don't when it comes to concrete, or construction in general. Though feel free to explain about that "degradation of the crystalline structure of concrete" you trotted out in post #52 of this thread. I'm still itching to hear your interpretation about that one. I notice you've ducked the last two requests to elaborate on it. Or should we take it you accept you're wrong on that point at least?

[johnroe]

Here's another cast in situ concrete framed building. Let's see if they do what the rest of the country is doing with them. From what I've seen of the new builds around here, that have required continual maintenance, I think there are some serious issues in housing and the use of materials. The internal frame and columns are irrelevant when the fire enters the building from outside. You've got nothing but bluff and nonsense.

[ik9000]

You've got nothing but bluff and nonsense.

Nice try, but my posts so far show which one of us knows what we're talking about. If I was really bothered I'd ask work to let me post some of my projects on here, and go through the remedial strategies for repairing concrete in listed buildings, or send you some of the concrete centre guides on the subject, or several of the other things I could do to justify my knowledge on this. But everything so far suggests to me that no amount of expertise will dissuade you from your pre-conceived and ill-judged opinions so I won't waste my time.

[johnroe]

ik9000>As you can tell I try to help people on these estates. I know people that have lived in the blocks for fifty years. They have a sort of love/hate relationship with them. I don't think families should be living in them.

Hey I'm just trying to understand in depth certain issues. If you don't take into account the political and other contexts then you cannot see the real problems, the underlying and long term problems. Like our changing attitude to private housing and our dissimilar attitude to social housing. Here's an interesting new solution for the estate; they talked to the residents and are proposing a more friendly environment.

'Issues to address in the refurbishment project, as identified in the report, include poor accessibility and layout in individual flats, as well as problems with ventilation and damp. Wider issues affecting the estate as a whole are also identified. These include flooding in the streets, a deficit of safety and security measures across the estate, and a lack of green spaces'

from> https://www.dezeen.com/2018/04/30/id...-tower-estate/

[Corky34]

I was basing it on complaints made by tenants about the state of the building, there's a blog from their action group somewhere above. And I was referring to this article about what they are finding about the condition of concrete that was used at that time, after they remove the cladding. https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news...m-blocks-56621

So your basing your judgment on anecdotes and a report that raises concerns that a severe explosion within a flat, the sort of event associated with pressurised gas, in a block in Portsmouth, despite LPS building not being allowed to have pressurised gas because of that very danger.

By any stretch of the imagination that's a long way from the concrete itself being sub standard, hence all these blocks are being evacuated.

[Xlucine]

ITT: Gish gallop meets a very patient civil engineer

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It's easy to break the fireproofing if you're not careful in these buildings. A tower near me was refurbed in 2011 and it turns out (in the wake of Grenfell) that the new kitchens and heating system installed broke a lot of the fire breaks. Cue a big safety program to fix all the bodges. Luckily for them there was no cladding installed, possibly due to the facade being brick rather than concrete.

Interesting to hear that. It makes you wonder what would have happened if the fireproofing had been restored to the original level,and the proper cladding had been used!

[Smudger]

IK9000, You're obviously clued up about this sort of thing, but don't forget, this is a post-fact world. Shouting ignorantly and loudly will always win for some. And hearsay and conjecture are preferable to considered fact. I admire the fact you've continued to argue every ignorant point made...

But anyway, the lean-to bivouac I made when I was in the cubs didn't withstand the winter, so this patently displays that the Grenfell concrete was faulty. I've got a polaroid of me standing next to the bivvy to prove it.

[Ttaskmaster]

But anyway, the lean-to bivouac I made when I was in the cubs didn't withstand the winter, so this patently displays that the Grenfell concrete was faulty. I've got a polaroid of me standing next to the bivvy to prove it.

But have you got the safety certifications from the building inspector and the materials manufacturer?

[Smudger]

But have you got the safety certifications from the building inspector and the materials manufacturer?

My mum said it looked really good. That's enough for me.

[ik9000]

ITT: Gish gallop meets a very patient civil engineer

I had to google that, never heard the phrase before. Nice to learn new things.

[ik9000]

My mum said it looked really good. That's enough for me.

what? you mean you didn't get those garden canes tested to the masonry standards?

[badass]

ITT: Gish gallop meets a very patient civil engineer

My thoughts exactly. I read through the entire thread and the only reason it doesn't surprise me is I have a much lower opinion of the human race than I did a few years ago.

[johnroe]

So your basing your judgment on anecdotes and a report that raises concerns that a severe explosion within a flat, the sort of event associated with pressurised gas, in a block in Portsmouth, despite LPS building not being allowed to have pressurised gas because of that very danger.

By any stretch of the imagination that's a long way from the concrete itself being sub standard, hence all these blocks are being evacuated.

I'm basing what I know of the Grenfell building structural design on what the architect says. I'm basing what I know of concrete pre fabricated beams, slabs, and walls; on government inspector's reports. I'm basing what I know of living in the building on what the tenants say, and the long list of serious problems recorded. I'm basing what I know about the cladding on freely available information.

When they removed the cladding in Portsmouth, recently, they found the concrete had failed in two blocks, same in Rugby(and eight other boroughs are reporting similar problems).

I know they talked of prosecuting the architect after the fire at Grenfell. I can see that one narrow staircase(with no lighting for emergency) may be a concern in his design.

And as structural engineers have said the only way to find out if these buildings where constructed correctly and using the correct materials, is when they dismantle them. I'm sure ik9000 wasn't at that site in the 1970's, nor did he supervise the pouring of the concrete both on site or in the factory. But the forensic examination of the building will tell us a lot about how structures from that period have survived. (But I note the limitations of others to interpret the information, that old pre 1945 mindset and the petty point scoring mentality)

[johnroe]

ITT: Gish gallop meets a very patient civil engineer

Oh I'm sorry I thought this was an open forum, where people can express their opinions. I don't do all this apologising for having an opinion.

This is the power of freedom of information, even lay people like me can find documents ,etc. Or maybe you think everyone is beholding to self professed experts like ik9000. Sorry those days are over, we want all the information and we want to make decisions for ourselves.

When I say everyone is an individual I mean it in the sense that from your finger prints to your DNA, all your experiences and knowledge, the unique way you think and interpret. So you'd expect individual people to have individual opinions, otherwise they're nothing but metaphorical sheep.