Cladding

[johnroe]

Why?
What's wrong with using all the ones that have stood empty since they were built in the 1980s? Same for all the unused office blocks that are just wasting away....

I don't follow your logic sometimes. The problem is that this is complex and is being used as political propaganda(not least by me). Most Muslim families tend to have larger families(contraception banned) especially toward the more fundamentalist. So many now have 4 to 6 children, either sharing one or two bedrooms in those style flats all over the country. Many of the blocks are also dumping housing for drug addicts and a few sad deviants. I think a family for the health of their children need a house with a garden, and a safe environment. But people like Blair have no idea of consequences.

So they need to build a massive amount of houses not only for the millions of people invited here by Blair/EU, and all their children. But also for those displaced and all the young couples here who are desperate to get out of the rent trap. I don't believe there are any empty houses, the demand is fierce. The housing market is now a financial investment system, if the UK build millions of houses, the demand and therefore price of existing stock will drop.

[Corky34]

Motivated by profit, but restricted by prescription-based safety. You're telling them what standards they must adhere to and then challenging them to do it as cheap as possible.
Let them innovate and find newer, better ways of being even safer.

So you expect companies you admit flouted standards because they wanted to do it as cheap as possible to spend the money needed to "innovate" so they can do safety cheaper? Do you not see the contradiction in that?

It has to be safe. That's all. If you can do that without even having to use brick in the first place, the specific brick test does not apply.

I would guess it doesn't, it would seem rather silly to use tests intended for bricks on something that isn't a brick.

It's all well and good saying it must be safe but who gets to decide what is safe, Grenfell is an example of what happens when we allow companies motivated by profit to decide, using the materiel's they choose to use wasn't innovative or new, it was cheaper.

And the reason the Germans are leading our industry in innovation is because, rather than trying to decide what is safe, safer, safest, and prove it all... they're finding newer ways to achieve things that eliminate the need for human presence, never mind actual exposure to danger in the first place. They're able to make it even safer, and consequently far more profitable than anything prescribed because, through simple reasoning, it is blatantly safer than anything else around.

And examples of that would be? Because the head-on collision of two trains in Bavaria two years ago seems to indicate "innovation" isn't working as well as you're implying, the tower block that was evacuated in Wuppertal after the Grenfell fire after it was found to contain flammable materials doesn't shout Germany leading the way in innovative safety methods.

Whatever you do, people will find ways to make money from it. If they couldn't, most of them wouldn't be in the game. The goal is to find ways to make safety affordable and profitable for them.

It's not about what I'd do.

I asked you what's the alternative as we've seen what happens when we leave safety management in the hands of people motivated by profits and money.

I've only had it 2 years.
When it was new, I'm sure it worked... but by today's measures, it scores a mere 2 out of 5.

Still doesn't mean it was unsafe when it was sold though.

Standards change, though, which is part of the problem.
For example - My own house is no longer compliant on the electrics (RCD or summat) and an electrician will not sign off on any work done without putting in a whole load of new fuseboxes. I can do what I want, but it's at my own risk.

Indeed they do but those changes improve the standards as our knowledge improves, they rarely make things worse from a safety perspective, it would only be a problem if we eroded the standards or we forced people to adopt a new standard because the old version is dangerous.

The electrics in your house is the perfect example, it was safe when first installed based on the then current knowledge and either though the deterioration of time or the acquisition of new knowledge it's no longer deemed safe by today's standards, no one is forcing you by penalty of law to make your electrics compliant, if those standards didn't exist the local electrician wouldn't innovate and develop a newer way of making your house safer, he'd do the quickest and cheapest job possible without even caring if your house burnt down a few years from now.

[ik9000]

I don't follow your logic sometimes.

Quote of the day.

[johnroe]

Quote of the day.

No really I've never heard that before, you are so funny.

[ik9000]

I don't follow your logic sometimes. The problem is that this is complex and is being used as political propaganda(not least by me). Most Muslim families tend to have larger families(contraception banned) especially toward the more fundamentalist. So many now have 4 to 6 children, either sharing one or two bedrooms in those style flats all over the country. Many of the blocks are also dumping housing for drug addicts and a few sad deviants. I think a family for the health of their children need a house with a garden, and a safe environment. But people like Blair have no idea of consequences.

So they need to build a massive amount of houses not only for the millions of people invited here by Blair/EU, and all their children. But also for those displaced and all the young couples here who are desperate to get out of the rent trap. I don't believe there are any empty houses, the demand is fierce. The housing market is now a financial investment system, if the UK build millions of houses, the demand and therefore price of existing stock will drop.

It seems to me your objection is a political one, based on conversations. Do you have any references you can give to support this argument?

Still waiting to hear more about the "changes to the crystalline structure of concrete" from a few posts back btw.

[ik9000]

But what if the brick isn't being compressed, or isn't subject to that amount of force?
What if we don't even use brick, but something else like solid steel? That still has to go through the same set of tests to prove it is as strong as a brick, even if it's blatantly so.

Well bricks are tested to their compressive destruction so obviously they will be used at a lower force. The design codes deal with how to interpolate based on expected stresses. And steel is obviously not tested to a masonry code. That's just stupid. Steel is supplied to its own standards, and the engineering properties well defined for everyone to use quite readily. CE marking may be needed, as would an ETAg for bespoke products.

I'm confused at the contradictory arguments going on in this thread - admittedly by multiple people - but we start with: don't want shonky products, we must ensure things are fit for purpose. then people complain that the very processes to ensure harmonised presentation of product data to allow consistent design application across Europe, and harmonised test procedures to verify products will perform as required costs too much and is too much bureaucracy. It's not - the cost and complication is wholly justified when those products are mass produced in their tens-of-thousands and used all across Europe in buildings intended to stand for at least 60 years, and in some cases over a hundred. A typical 3-storey building will have for example, over a hundred wall ties, two-three dozen shelf angles, 30+ lintels, etc etc. Scale that up, it's important to know things are safe to use. The risks and costs otherwise are ridiculous.

No-one wants to have in their car cheap shonky imitation parts with no safety testing and approval that break before their time. No-one wants to board an airplane where the turbine blades haven't been tested, re-tested, signed-off and monitored throughout their life for fatigue. Who wants to drive across a road bridge or ride a cable car where the tensile cables were imported from micky-mouse's snake-oil and genuin* steel fabrication, without the test data to demonstate those cables will perform adequately? Why should building products be any different?

[Butcher]

But what if the brick isn't being compressed, or isn't subject to that amount of force?
What if we don't even use brick, but something else like solid steel? That still has to go through the same set of tests to prove it is as strong as a brick, even if it's blatantly so.

Why is it blatantly so? Are you the steel whisperer who can look at a piece of steel and assess its strength just from intuition?

Steel is "blatantly" strong enough is how you end up with things like this:

[peterb]

Why is it blatantly so? Are you the steel whisperer who can look at a piece of steel and assess its strength just from intuition?

Steel is "blatantly" strong enough is how you end up with things like this:

Not quite the same thing though. That failure was primarily caused by resonance that stressed the structure way above the anticipated design stresses.

Resonance in bridges wasn’t understood at the time, but modern suspension bridges are designed to avoid resonance so the design was improved, rather than banning steel for suspension bridge construction.

[Butcher]

Not quite the same thing though. That failure was primarily caused by resonance that stressed the structure way above the anticipated design stresses.

Resonance in bridges wasn’t understood at the time, but modern suspension bridges are designed to avoid resonance so the design was improved, rather than banning steel for suspension bridge construction.

True, but the idea that "steel is strong so we're fine" is not always applicable. You have to consider the design stress of the structure and compare that to the steel strength. Just assuming a material is inherently strong enough is a recipe for failure.
There are situations where bricks would hold but steel would not, so to assume that one can always be replaced with another is poor engineering.

[Ttaskmaster]

I don't follow your logic sometimes.

It's really not difficult...
If you needed some apples, would you go buy some from the shop, despite already having several unopened bushels bought fresh yesterday?

Don't need to build something that's already been built. Simple as that.

I don't believe there are any empty houses, the demand is fierce.

Come to Rickmansworth, I'll show you eight flat units and two commercial properties that have stood unused since the day they went up.
Come to Reading, I'll show you several multistorey office units right in the middle of town (complete with river views) that could be used for housing.

The housing market is now a financial investment system, if the UK build millions of houses, the demand and therefore price of existing stock will drop.

Which is why they're sat empty - People/companies own them and are sitting on them until they can make enough cash. Mostly owned by foreign investors, too, so there's more fuel for your anti-Blair/EU propaganda.
I'm sure they properties could be force-purchased, if people wanted to go down that route - They're already buying up farmland round here, so they can build 15,000 homes for close on £1.5Bn and lay the foundations for joining Reading with Basingstoke. If they can afford that, they can certainly afford to force-purchase existing properties with existing infrastructure.

So you expect companies you admit flouted standards because they wanted to do it as cheap as possible to spend the money needed to "innovate" so they can do safety cheaper? Do you not see the contradiction in that?

If they can do it that cheap and still keep safety as the priority, there's no contradiction. The problem is that they had to compromise safety (and many other things) in order to meet the financial restrictions of the prescriptive regulation.

Grenfell is an example of what happens when we allow companies motivated by profit to decide, using the materiel's they choose to use wasn't innovative or new, it was cheaper.

It's an example of how prescription-based safety actually makes financial margins the primary governing factor and forces compromise. Money will always be a driver, as they still have to sell their product at the end of the day... no point making it ultra-safe if no-one can afford it. But the safer they can make it, the more it will sell, so it becomes a sliding balance between those and any other factors.

And examples of that would be?

Bravvoliner, rerounding clips, various laser, sonar and LiDAR surveying units, drone surveyors.... I did specify my industry.

I asked you what's the alternative as we've seen what happens when we leave safety management in the hands of people motivated by profits and money.

There is no alternative. Everyone is thus motivated. If they weren't, they'd work for free and that really doesn't happen in the Western world.
Best you can do is remove all the micromanagement and regulation that just gets in the way of people doing a good job, and instead put simpler stuctures in place that give everyone the better picture so you have a more joined-up, holistic process...

Still doesn't mean it was unsafe when it was sold though.

How are buildings any different, then?

it would only be a problem if we eroded the standards or we forced people to adopt a new standard because the old version is dangerous.

It only improves the little piece of paper with the standards written on them, though. It doesn't make the actual world around any safer. In fact, the only time it comes into play is if something older fails and then we can wave the new standard at whoever we deem responsible, as evidence of their guilt.

no one is forcing you by penalty of law to make your electrics compliant, if those standards didn't exist the local electrician wouldn't innovate and develop a newer way of making your house safer, he'd do the quickest and cheapest job possible without even caring if your house burnt down a few years from now.

But you can bet those standards will be used to punish someone at some point.

And steel is obviously not tested to a masonry code. That's just stupid.

Steel, or titanium, or polyduranium foam... Whatever fits teh example best. Pick anything that is 'known' to be stronger/better than your existing material of choice in a given application and therefore wouldn't need a load of expensive testing.

No-one wants to have in their car cheap shonky imitation parts with no safety testing and approval that break before their time. No-one wants to board an airplane where the turbine blades haven't been tested, re-tested, signed-off and monitored throughout their life for fatigue.

No-one wants it to cost the earth, either, but this stuff is one more factor in the end purchase price.

Why is it blatantly so? Are you the steel whisperer who can look at a piece of steel and assess its strength just from intuition?

Why yes, yes I am. I also whisper horses, but only on the weekends...

Substitute the word 'blatantly' for 'known to be', if you like.

There are situations where bricks would hold but steel would not, so to assume that one can always be replaced with another is poor engineering.

So when would a steel brick fail a compression test that a normal clay brick would withstand?
It's a hypothetical example - Pick any 'obvious' alternatives and apply the same bureaucracy to prescriptively proscribe - I even used people earlier.

[Corky34]

If they can do it that cheap and still keep safety as the priority, there's no contradiction. The problem is that they had to compromise safety (and many other things) in order to meet the financial restrictions of the prescriptive regulation.

So who gets to define what safe is?

And no they didn't compromise safety (and many other things) in order to meet the financial restrictions of the prescriptive regulation, they compromise safety (from what we can tell at this early stage (like a year later is early)) because the council chose the cheapest tender and that company compromised even further because they wanted to save even more money, that has nothing to do the prescriptive regulation because those were flouted throughout the refurbishment.

If they couldn't do the job while maintaining safety then they should've said we can't do it for that price, having said that I'd love to know what innovation you believe would have allowed them to do it cheaper while keeping safety as a priority?

So i was going to reply to the other points you've raised but it's become clear that you have your opinion, i have mine, and you're unwilling to compromise on your opinion that safety should be entirely in the hands of for profit private organisations and despite attempts at compromising by asking you what the alternative is to both our unacceptable view points (you suggesting it should be entirely in the hands of for profit private organisations and me saying that's unacceptable as we've seen what happens when we do that, and me saying we should be using prescriptive regulations and you saying that's unacceptable because of cost and innovation), despite trying to compromise it seems we're going round in circles.

I don't mean that in a negative manner, that its not been an interesting discussion or anything like that, but like i said it seems were no further along than we were 2-3 pages ago.

[Ttaskmaster]

So who gets to define what safe is?

Whoever is in charge, usually. They are 'informed' by the 'decision-making tools' at their disposal, typically accountants, engineers, regulators, customer liaisons, contractors and whoever else...

the council chose the cheapest tender

Ah, so the council was motivated by profit, not the company. The company had to merely compromise in order to get the work... so who set the council's budget?

that has nothing to do the prescriptive regulation because those were flouted throughout the refurbishment.

Were they?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43558186
Sounds more like a lot of people not being made aware of them in the first place.

I'd love to know what innovation you believe would have allowed them to do it cheaper while keeping safety as a priority?

Hence the earlier hypotheticals on finding such a thing. That's what your innovation is for. Might be someone realises that you could use recycled cardboard, or something else totally off the wall (pun intended) that nobody else thought about.... the Elon Musk sort of thinking that leads to stuff like Sugru™.
If I knew exactly what innovation, I'd not be talking to you on a naff office computer like this one!!

and you're unwilling to compromise on your opinion that safety should be entirely in the hands of for profit private organisations

Who, then?
Ministers, governing bodies, regulators, inspectors and anyone else who is employed? Because I promise you, even the public ones do it for the money just as much.
If they were any better, we wouldn't be laughing in the face of our own regulator!
I'd trust not-for-profit organisations even less, as that means they have some other agenda in play, usually political. Technically our entire water industry is not meant to be profit-making... but guess what?

I don't mean that in a negative manner, that its not been an interesting discussion or anything like that, but like i said it seems were no further along than we were 2-3 pages ago.

Like I said, if either of us had answers we'd not be in jobs like this!!

[peterb]

So who gets to define what safe is?

Safe is a very subjective term, and nothing is unconditionally safe. Its better to talk in terms of risk, and the aim is to get the risk as low as reasonably practicable - which is also subjective! Risk assessment is also complex - an occurrence that has high probability but minimal impact may be acceptable, as might one that has a very low probability, but a high impact.

As a crude example - a fault on the lift system means that roughly once every two days the lift fails to operate, causing lots of inconvenience to everyone in the block - minor inconvenience as there is another lift. To fix it costs £10,000,000 because parts are obsolete.

at the same time a fault is identified which means that under earthquake conditions that only happen once every 10,000 years might mean parts of the block collapsing. It also costs £10,000,000 to fix. Where do you spend the money? (This doesn't require an answer - its an example of risk assessment decisions!)

And no they didn't compromise safety (and many other things) in order to meet the financial restrictions of the prescriptive regulation, they compromise safety (from what we can tell at this early stage (like a year later is early)) because the council chose the cheapest tender and that company compromised even further because they wanted to save even more money, that has nothing to do the prescriptive regulation because those were flouted throughout the refurbishment.

If they couldn't do the job while maintaining safety then they should've said we can't do it for that price, having said that I'd love to know what innovation you believe would have allowed them to do it cheaper while keeping safety as a priority?

Government (national and local) procurement is complex and is intended to provide best value for money for the tax payer. (another subjective term).

The Procuring Authority (PA) prepares a tender document describing what needs to be done (trying not to be too prescriptive as its looking for innovative solutions) and the regulations/standards that need to be adhered to.

Companies then tender against that bid - the bid is in two parts - the technical part and the financial part. The technical parts are assessed to see if the meet the requirement, and the best ones selected. There is some financial scrutiny to make sure the company is sound etc (doesnt always work!) and then companies ranked - cheapest first.

If the best and cheapest are top of the list, no problem. If not there is some decision making to be made. If one company is significantly cheaper but only fails to meet the spec in a minor detail, it may win the bid. On the other hand, a company that is only slightly more exensive but offers significant benefits, it may win.

The contract is let and the PA is responsible for managing the contract to ensure that everything in the tender and bid is achieved.

So there is pressure on the bidding companies to keep costs down - but they need to make a profit to stay in business - and the tender process can be expensive for them.

Oversight rests with the PA but any changes may result in a variation in the contract which could be expensive as the contractor will charge fo that.

So there are obvious flaws in the process - the possibility of the project being badly specified, the contractor cutting costs, inadequate supervision and failure to understand all the ramifications of a design (such as cladding forming a chimney if there are no baffles in place).

This is a basic or generic outline of the process - there may be other stages, scoping contracts etc, and the supervision could be contracted out to an independent organisation.

And I don't know how the refurbishment to Grenfell was procured, tendered or supervised, but I am sure they will be aspects that the inquiry will address and I hope the lessons identified will be learned.

[Corky34]

@Ttaskmaster, Like i said you seem to believe companies motivated entirely by profit would actually put people lives before profit despite mountains of evidence showing that's not the case, i believe we have to prescribe minimum safety standards so companies don't put profit before lives like they've done many times in the past, neither of us seem willing to compromise so perhaps it's best if we leave it there.

Sorry but i just have to pick up on this...

Were they?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43558186
Sounds more like a lot of people not being made aware of them in the first place.

Your answer to me saying prescriptive regulation were flouted is to link to an article that says exactly that? That the manufacturer of the cladding disregarded safety standards originally claimed.

Safe is a very subjective term.

Very true, i only asked that because Ttaskmaster seemed unwilling to even consider someone other than private for profit companies should decide.

[ik9000]

And I don't know how the refurbishment to Grenfell was procured, tendered or supervised, but I am sure they will be aspects that the inquiry will address and I hope the lessons identified will be learned.

Having lived in a TMO block and seen what happened there when they did a refurb. Yes, I too would like to know how the TMO went about this. I really really would.

[Butcher]

So when would a steel brick fail a compression test that a normal clay brick would withstand?
It's a hypothetical example - Pick any 'obvious' alternatives and apply the same bureaucracy to prescriptively proscribe - I even used people earlier.

A steel brick that had been weathered for a number of years might fail due to rusting, where a clay brick (especially an engineering brick) could withstand potentially centuries of weathering.
I mean, leaving aside that no one in their right mind would create bricks out of steel in the first place.

Another concern is that steel is not fire resistant while bricks are, so just replacing bricks with steel is not an obvious swap.