[SystemSafety] Fire tests on Panelling

[SPRIGGS, John J]

>  So it does look as though A1:2017 was added as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire

Amendment A1 adds two bibliography items that pre-date the original issue of the standard; one a building research establishment paper, and the other is Approved Document B, which you mentioned previously.

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Peter Bernard Ladkin
Sent: 26 June 2017 10:25
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: [SystemSafety] Fire tests on Panelling

According to The Guardian today, cladding from 60 residential high-rises have now been tested and
all 60 have failed whatever fire test is being used.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/25/revealed-60-towers-across-england-found-to-have-unsafe-cladding<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/25/revealed-60-towers-across-england-found-to-have-unsafe-cladding>

The newspaper does not say to what standards the cladding is being tested.

I just looked up British standards using the keyword search "building fire safety" on the BSI WWW
site and found BS 8414-2:2015+A1:2017 Fire performance of external cladding systems. Test method for
non-loadbearing external cladding systems fixed to and supported by a structural steel frame. It has
a release date of 2017-06-23, last Friday. That must refer to A1, since the date of the standard is
2015. So it does look as though A1:2017 was added as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire.

It costs £116. Half that if you are a BSI member. It's twenty pages long. Anyone know what it says?

I don't know about British standards in particular, but many standards have a transition time after
a new edition during which the older edition and the new edition are both valid. This raises the
possibility that the older version (from 2005) and the new standard (2015) were both valid into
2016. It also could be that the 2015 standard is more stringent than the 2005 standard, and that
many buildings clad with material that satisfied the 2005 standard might not satisfy the 2015
standard (and, one might suppose, its A1 supplement even less). That might in turn account for some
of the apparent public confusion over whether standards were satisfied. This is all speculation on
my part since I haven't read the standard and don't know what tests were conducted end of last week.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
MoreInCommon
Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs-bi.de<http://www.rvs-bi.de>

***************************************************************************
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at Email information.solutions at nats.co.uk
immediately. You should not copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose
their contents to any other person.

NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to 
secure the effective operation of the system.

Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses or any losses
caused as a result of viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email
and any attachments.

NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS (Services) Ltd 
(company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number: 4164590) 
or NATS Ltd (company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd (company number 4138218). 
All companies are registered in England and their registered office is at 4000 Parkway, 
Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7FL.

***************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20170626/9ae7b117/attachment.html>