FOCUS
Set to work Following the Grenfell Tower fire, the Grenfell
Technical Group was set up with a specific remit. John Cole reports on its progress and Secured By Design’s involvement
A
S PART of its criminal investigation into the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017, the Metropolitan
Police carried out a test on a glazed fi re door to a fl at entrance and discovered that the door – believed to have been designed to resist fi re for up to 30 minutes (as required by the Building Regulations) – had failed after approximately 15 minutes. In order to satisfy the benchmarks of the Building Regulations in England (and the guidance in the relevant Approved Document) regarding protection of escape routes, fl at front doorsets should achieve 30 minutes’ fi re resistance when tested in accordance with BS 476-22 or BS EN 1634-1. These fi re doorsets should also be capable of satisfying the relevant guidance on leakage of smoke at ambient temperature when tested in accordance with BS 476-31 or BS EN 1364-3. In addition, the doorsets should also offer enhanced security, in accordance with BS publication, PAS 24-12 (as amended), as outlined in Approved Document Q (ADQ). The specification of the doorset which is
22 JUNE 2018
www.frmjournal.com
submitted for test to PAS 24, or equivalent referenced within ADQ, must match that of the doorset submitted for fi re testing.
Government investigations
The police fi nding prompted the government to announce that further investigations were necessary to understand what had happened. It therefore consulted with its independent expert panel; sought technical expertise from the National Fire Chiefs Council, technical experts from industry and the government’s chief scientific advisers; conducted additional testing and visual inspections of fi re doors from the same batch of doors installed at Grenfell and a sample of other doors; and commissioned further additional testing as part of its investigation. At this time, the government announced
its current investigations focused on doors from a single manufacturer. That company was no longer trading, it reported. Further government investigations were stated to involve the following:
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
