Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Hi Marc. I think Volume 1 of AD B only applies to detached/semi detached homes, not blocks of flats. If you look at page 6, it also says:

"0.1 Where very large (over 18m in height) or unusual dwellinghouses are proposed, some of the guidance in Volume 2 may be needed to supplement that given by Volume 1."

It appears the architects for Grenfell originally were going to go with Proteus cladding which has a honeycomb metallic core, which is 10-20% more expensive than plastic cladding:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4612626/Fire-safe-panels-initially-chosen-Grenfell-Tower.html

I assume it was probably this one, the Proteus HR

https://www.proteusfacades.com/products/proteus-hr/

If you look at the datasheet for that linked at the bottom, you'll see, on page 10, it states that it meets Class 0 rating for BS 476 Parts 6 (fire propagation) and 7 (surface spread of flame), which is better than both Reynobond products. It also states there is a non standard A2 version available that was used on the London Underground. It appears, on one interpretation of AD B Vol. 2 that only that may only be actually suitable for buildings over 18m.

KME Architectural Solutions lost out to Omnis Exteriors, who were presumably the (or a?), distributor for Alcoa, now Arconis products in the UK. How much did Omnis know about the fire risks associated with both Reynobond products for tall buildings? If they only had what was on the old Alcoa site, not much it would seem.

Your details

Cancel