Grenfell Tower Fire

It has been a while since I last posted on the blog as I have been very busy and for that I apologise to the community.


As a professional engineer the Grenfell Tower fire and the aftermath makes me very very uneasy.  I am very concerned as to the urgency for a response to this as 'arm chair' experts jump to promote theories and solutions to this tragic fire without first applying due diligence to the thought and comment.  It is natural to seek someone to blame and that is a basic human reaction but as professionals we should disist from such behaviour and try to take human emotion out of the equation when seeking to learn.  Whilst the massive loss of life is tragic in the extreem and my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families we must seek the truth by thorough thought and understanding.  Whilst not an expert in construction I offer some thought provoking bullet points of my own.  Namely:

1.  Do we understand the test parameters of all the materials used in the construction the point of fit.  This includes the cladding, the insulation, the polymer furniture (window frames etc)?

2.  Was the test parameters of the assembly (using all materials and applied assembly techniques) known?

3.  Was the building fitted out in accordance with OEM instruction for application? 

4.  Was there OEM guidance in use of materials and application?

5.  Council Planning.  Did this pass planning permission and more importantly - where is the documented evidence of stage-gate acceptance to building regulations throughout face lift?

6.  What was the relationship between the contractor, the planning authority, architect, and the building inspector throughout the works?

7.  Are the material tests being carried out fit for purpose?  Personally I doubt this as tests now being reported are no more than calorific test results which at best are flawed.  Yes it is ok to test and understand the calorific value of inividual materials but this is only half of the story.  The full assembly should be constructed and allowance for the 'draft' that occurs from the 'chimney' effect as the fire moves throughout the lamiated skin of the concrete, insulation and tiles.  I have seen no reporting of tests in this regards.

8.  The fire inspections which are mandatory in law are obviously deficient when applied to high rise buildings.  Where was the sprinkler system?  Whilst they building may have been constructed before these were mandated it is unacceptable to just ignore that such buildings do not  have these.  This issue should be immediately madated in law with a given time span to retrofit buildings which are deficient.  Why is there no computer modelling for fire?  Again this should form part of the planning process and the responsibility of the architect to supply and the building inspectorate to police.


I could go on defining the scope of investigation but I know that the readers of this post will understand my concern.  It is only by stripping the emotion out of the response and avoiding the rush to judgement that true learning will be attained and through the application of such......the avoidance or effective mitiagtion of such a future disaster achieved.  Afterall, whilst we all seek to achieve and promote excellent engineering solutions our collective priority is our social responsibility and the protection of life.

It has been a while since I last posted on the blog as I have been very busy and for that I apologise to the community.


As a professional engineer the Grenfell Tower fire and the aftermath makes me very very uneasy.  I am very concerned as to the urgency for a response to this as 'arm chair' experts jump to promote theories and solutions to this tragic fire without first applying due diligence to the thought and comment.  It is natural to seek someone to blame and that is a basic human reaction but as professionals we should disist from such behaviour and try to take human emotion out of the equation when seeking to learn.  Whilst the massive loss of life is tragic in the extreem and my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families we must seek the truth by thorough thought and understanding.  Whilst not an expert in construction I offer some thought provoking bullet points of my own.  Namely:

1.  Do we understand the test parameters of all the materials used in the construction the point of fit.  This includes the cladding, the insulation, the polymer furniture (window frames etc)?

2.  Was the test parameters of the assembly (using all materials and applied assembly techniques) known?

3.  Was the building fitted out in accordance with OEM instruction for application? 

4.  Was there OEM guidance in use of materials and application?

5.  Council Planning.  Did this pass planning permission and more importantly - where is the documented evidence of stage-gate acceptance to building regulations throughout face lift?

6.  What was the relationship between the contractor, the planning authority, architect, and the building inspector throughout the works?

7.  Are the material tests being carried out fit for purpose?  Personally I doubt this as tests now being reported are no more than calorific test results which at best are flawed.  Yes it is ok to test and understand the calorific value of inividual materials but this is only half of the story.  The full assembly should be constructed and allowance for the 'draft' that occurs from the 'chimney' effect as the fire moves throughout the lamiated skin of the concrete, insulation and tiles.  I have seen no reporting of tests in this regards.

8.  The fire inspections which are mandatory in law are obviously deficient when applied to high rise buildings.  Where was the sprinkler system?  Whilst they building may have been constructed before these were mandated it is unacceptable to just ignore that such buildings do not  have these.  This issue should be immediately madated in law with a given time span to retrofit buildings which are deficient.  Why is there no computer modelling for fire?  Again this should form part of the planning process and the responsibility of the architect to supply and the building inspectorate to police.


I could go on defining the scope of investigation but I know that the readers of this post will understand my concern.  It is only by stripping the emotion out of the response and avoiding the rush to judgement that true learning will be attained and through the application of such......the avoidance or effective mitiagtion of such a future disaster achieved.  Afterall, whilst we all seek to achieve and promote excellent engineering solutions our collective priority is our social responsibility and the protection of life.