Grenfell Tower fire

[johnsb]

To say that this was a horrific fire is a minimization at best. I've been reading some of the reports about the fire safety complaints going back to at LEAST 2004. https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/
Someone (or more likely a bunch of people, possibly even a LFB inspector or two) should be going to prison over this. While not quite the same, it IS somewhat reminiscent of the WTC 9/11 incident in the fact that the Fire Brigade was unable to reach a lot of people, even though they obviously gave it their all. Hopefully, England will learn from this and REQUIRE modern fire safety practices in any structure that houses people, no matter who they are.

[scfire86]

The London Fire Brigade did the profession proud. While everyone was running out, they were running in.

[tree68]

From what I've seen in reports and the videos, a fair amount of the blame for the severity of the fire apparently goes to the cladding (siding, for all intents and purposes) that was applied to make the building more attractive.

I am totally guessing here - but, based on the videos I've seen, it appears the fire may have actually travelled up the outside of the building and made its way inside each floor from the outside, as opposed to travelling through the interior (which may also have happened).

Either way, LFB was behind the power curve right from the beginning (through no fault of their own). "Make pumps 40" would be the equivalent of somewhere between an 8th and a 10th alarm. Given those circumstances, they certainly did make the profession proud.

[RobbyKHC]

I'd say that's a decent assumption Tree68. I also heard that the sprinkler system wasn't working I'm still looking into more info on this I have a few buddies in the fire brigade over there. Haven't been able to talk to them since before it started.

Article I found: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40272168

[johnsb]

I'd say that's a decent assumption Tree68. I also heard that the sprinkler system wasn't working I'm still looking into more info on this I have a few buddies in the fire brigade over there. Haven't been able to talk to them since before it started.

Article I found: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40272168

From what I can tell, Grenfell towers DIDN'T HAVE a sprinkler system. Unthinkable.

[captnjak]

From what I can tell, Grenfell towers DIDN'T HAVE a sprinkler system. Unthinkable.

Not unthinkable at all. Actually very common here in the US. NYC has hundreds of them.

A sprinkler system that is OOS long term is a whole other matter.

Flammable cladding is unthinkable yet apparently common around the world.

[johnsb]

Not unthinkable at all. Actually very common here in the US. NYC has hundreds of them.

A sprinkler system that is OOS long term is a whole other matter.

Flammable cladding is unthinkable yet apparently common around the world.

Does NYC permit a major remodel without adding them?? And when did they make it mandatory for installing in new builds?? Grenfell tower was built in '72. How many 24(ish) story buildings in NYC don't have sprinklers? (if you have that info) I sure as hell wouldn't live or work in one...

[SteveDude]

I haven't been on here for years, but I'll answer in relation to high rise buildings in the UK generally but more specifically to London which has some additional legislation.

First off, up until the 1950's due to the clay bedrock in London, High rise buildings were not really a feature. But the demand for new housing after the war saw a change and high rise housing began to shoot up with a spurt in growth in the 1960's where over 1000 high rise apartment blocks sprang up during the 60's and 70's. The terms for us is 'blocks of flats' a flat being an apartment. Council blocks, means social housing, provided by that local authority.

Commercial blocks also began to appear and these although relatively low in number in the late 60's started to head up towards 30 floors with over 40 floors in the late 70's which caused an amendment to the London building act (A London specific piece of legislation) section 20 of which related to firefighting in tall buildings. They needed to be reinforced concrete frames with more than a single staircase, a firefighting lobby, dry or wet risers (standpipes) depending on height.... essentially over 25 floors required a wet system with an independent water supply, pumps etc. The final bit of the legislation which came about when the first 50 floor building came along was the requirement for sprinklers.... thus all of London's modern tall commercial high rises became what we used to call 'section 20' buildings meaning they were sprinklered.

In the late 80?s the desire to build taller came along and now with better technology for building on clay we have many commercial and modern private residential buildings that are over 500ft and up to 1016ft for our tallest which is a multi-use Office/Hotel/Apartment block.

They are not the problem though? the number of blocks of council flats in London are in excess of 1000 and generally range between 10 and 25 floors. The design specification, now very old is that they are essentially multiple floors of 4-6 (depending on design) self-contained concrete fire proof boxes on each floor. The idea being, you can set a flat on fire, walk out of the door and it will burn away for up to one hour when the assumption is a) the fire is extinguished or b) it has consumed its fire load.

These all have a rising main (wet or dry again depending on height) and what is termed a Fireman?s lift. (One of the elevators is switchable for fire brigade control and has fire resisting circuitry). Sprinklers are not mandatory and very few council blocks of the thousands in the UK have them. There was an opportunity after another high rise fire where 6 died in London in 2009, but Government did not legislate which went against the recommendation from the Coroner. And the record would state that after more than 50 years of high rise social housing in London and all of the other major UK Cities, with plenty of fires in these blocks, sprinklers have been deemed unnecessary, unpopular with the public and expensive (although relatively inexpensive to retro-fit to a major refurbishment). In many ways, I guess like NYC where there are just so many council blocks it is (or was) a case of where do you start.

The tactics we use is that upon arrival the riser is set in by one crew while the second crew of Officer and at least 3 Firefighters (two in SCBA) go to the floor below (changed a few years ago to 2 floors below) to set up a bridgehead. They will then charge the hose from the riser and the first crew make an initial attack/rescue with a second crew of two in SCBA following up behind to continue the firefighting/provide escape protection assist in rescue etc). the most senior of the two Officer takes overall command in the lobby (So Capt stays down as IC and Lt goes up to bridghead).

With London being a diverse World City of over 8m people, you can imagine high rise fires come along fairly frequently. It fair to say somewhere in London we'll have a reasonable high rise job about once per month (reasonable meaning at least a one room burn out with some auto exposure from the room involved and requiring a 'make up' where additional appliances are required). The pre-determined attendance on a high rise is four pump sand an aerial?. A working job as I?ve described will usually be a 6 pump job.

So this sets the back drop of London?s Firefighters, especially those in the inner city areas getting a reasonable amount of exposure to high rise firefighting. The job at Grenfell Tower went much the same way?. Called at 00:54 last week two pumps from the neatest station arrived and with fire evident on the 4^th floor (5^th for US and we count floor 1 as ground floor). Command was established in the lobby, the riser set in and crews deployed to the 4^th where they met the resident who explained his fridge was on fire in the kitchen. The room was by now fully developed and as in line with a typical response, the IC in the lobby made pumps 6 (requesting an additional 2 pumps and all else that brings on top of the 4 plus aerial on the first call). The BA crew entered and started fighting the fire and all was going well. As the 3^rd and 4^th had arrived, as well as sending additional crews to the bridgehead the IC sent an officer (possibly from the aerial truck) for a 360 of the block?. That is when it was spotted on the cladding (as you'd expect from an auto exposing fire) what wasn't expected was that it was running up the walls.

All of this above is in the public domain and I can't comment anymore on the fire as it is subject to coroner restriction. Nevertheless, it escalated to 40 pumps with 10 Fire Rescue units (similar in role to FDNY Rescue) as these crews plus the pumps they are station with ride with extended duration BA) and four aerials (not forgetting it is only the US and Canada who use aerials as Truck Co?s, for the remainder of the world they are a rescue/water tower so are only crewed with officer and driver), so four was for rescue for lower windows and water tower work.

The rest has now gone down in Fire service history and you have no doubt seen the many news reports.... but what I will say is; I am weeks away from 30 years service, I've spent all of that time from Firefighter up to Borough Commander (DC) in busy inner London areas. I have never seen bravery of human endurance like I saw and have heard about last week. With so much on fire the output from the dry riser was limited but these boys and girls were ten or more floors above the last hoseline working in brutal conditions on a warm and humid night, having to make decisions about who to take out when they came across multiple casualties. Time and time again, they came out changed cylinders and went back in.... never have I been more proud to say I'm a London Fireman.

[tree68]

Dude - Thanks. Great description of what happened and how it got there.

[captnjak]

Does NYC permit a major remodel without adding them?? And when did they make it mandatory for installing in new builds?? Grenfell tower was built in '72. How many 24(ish) story buildings in NYC don't have sprinklers? (if you have that info) I sure as hell wouldn't live or work in one...

NYC has long relied on fireproof compartmentation, central station connected fire alarm systems (smoke detectors and manual pull stations) along with secondary egress to provide fire safety.

In 1984 commercial buildings over 75 feet tall were required to be built with sprinklers. Not retroactive.
In 2004, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the law was changed to require all commercial buildings over 100 feet tall to have sprinklers. The law was retroactive but building owners were given 15 years to comply. All are supposed to be in compliance by 07/01/2019. Most likely there will be extensions granted.
In 2008 multiple dwellings (more than three families) were required to be built with sprinklers. Not retroactive.

The above is the short answer. It is not complete, as the building and fire codes are incredibly complex here. FDNY has a fire inspection bureau made up of civilians who are full time inspectors. Firefighting field units perform inspections but mostly enforce maintenance and fire safety provisions of the code.

The NYC Housing Authority houses about a half million people in 2600 buildings ranging from 6 to 22 stories tall. None of them are sprinklered.
There are thousands of privately owned high rise residential buildings throughout the city. Most are not sprinklered and the code does not require sprinklers to be added retroactively.

[johnsb]

I've yet to see any building that's truly "fireproof", anymore than the Titanic was "unsinkable"....
There's always that one thing nobody thought of.

[RobbyKHC]

I've yet to see any building that's truly "fireproof", anymore than the Titanic was "unsinkable"....
There's always that one thing nobody thought of.

There's that and also people don't realize stuff wears off and wears out after a period of time. I've yet to see proactive building owners who'd have the walls resprayed with fireproofing and such after the recommended time frame. I'd like to say we're trying to put ourselves out of a job pushing fire prevention but.... we always have that job security...

[captnjak]

I've yet to see any building that's truly "fireproof", anymore than the Titanic was "unsinkable"....
There's always that one thing nobody thought of.

If windows fail or are left open, fire laps up side of building and enters open or failed windows on floor above.

Self-closing mechanism fails or occupants chock open apartment door and fire is into hall area.

So much for fireproof!

But in general the compartmentation does confine the fire to one apartment.

[johnsb]

If windows fail or are left open, fire laps up side of building and enters open or failed windows on floor above.

Self-closing mechanism fails or occupants chock open apartment door and fire is into hall area.

So much for fireproof!

But in general the compartmentation does confine the fire to one apartment.

I think it's more accurate to say that GOOD compartmentation SLOWS down the fire long enough to extinguish it before it spreads....

[captnjak]

I think it's more accurate to say that GOOD compartmentation SLOWS down the fire long enough to extinguish it before it spreads....

The code under which most of these buildings were built has varying levels of protection ranging from one to four hour ratings. The compartmentation generally works very well. I've seen fires that ran out of fuel and or air and basically self extinguished prior to FD arrival.

Of course there are exceptions. Failure of windows being one of them as mentioned above. Or openings being made subsequent to original construction, but that is not a failure of design or craftsmanship.