for Grenfell turn out to be legitimate or illegal, going forward hopefully more people will understand that what you are ‘allowed to do’ under our lax building regulations might be very different to what you ‘need to do’ to ensure life safety, the continued provision of services and business. It is probably not surprising that our own analysis of potential contributing factors to Grenfell touched nearly every aspect of work that RISCAuthority has sought to tackle over the last five years. These themes were presented to a specially convened insurers meeting at ABI, and a fund was provided to specifically address: • the appropriateness of standard cladding tests
• high integrity detection and alarm systems
• quality of installation to support residential sprinkler systems
These three research streams are due for delivery early in 2018. Before describing the specifics, it is
important not to forget other challenges. A key area of failing is around engagement with those responsible for building regulations and our ability to invoke change. Our frustration at their intransigence in the face of compelling and expensively produced evidence over many years is well known. You may have noted plastic vent and duct holes in many images of cladding removal. As breaches that do not require fire stopping, they might be seen as soft points within cladding systems where fire may enter combustible voids internally (a kitchen fire) or externally (a plastic bin fire), then recommunicate to other compartments. There may also be key differences between
test systems and those on buildings – particularly in respect of structural strengthening around high fire challenge points. As a test of total encapsulation of insulation material and cavity barriers, there is also a need to ascertain whether it actually is a test of material and device performance. Rainscreen systems have a void between insulation and ACM, on which are placed
RISCAuthority insight T
Dr Jim Glockling reviews how events in 2017 might impact our work programmes going forward
HE EVENTS of 2017 are likely to permanently reshape attitudes to UK business and property protection. Whether or not material selections
competing requirements during normal use and under fire.
In normal operation the void must be fully open
and free to vent so that moisture does not cause problems. Under fire conditions it must seal to prevent flame, heat and smoke spread. This is normally achieved through intumescent devices swelling to close the void. However, this obviously means that flames
may pass them for a duration, which might lead you to assume that suitability must be linked to ignitability and combustibility of the materials they seek to separate, but this does not seem to be the case. Our study will seek to determine if any of these
features might change our perception of the appropriateness of the cladding test regimes, and if they do, they will be provided for consideration by those seeking to improve test standards. The high integrity detection project is a
reawakening of the research and government lobbying we did back in 2014. Detector technology has advanced to the point that false, unwanted alarms could be almost eliminated with very little cost differential, if there was the will to insist on multi species detectors in high risk and commercial premises in regulations. There is a need for standards bodies to respond with the inclusion of tests for challenges detectors should be immune to, such as steam and aerosols, in addition to those they should respond to, but until this is addressed the most obvious, simple and beneficial change remains out of reach. Finally, with a likely proliferation of residential sprinkler systems, there is a need to ensure that where installations are to standards other than our insurer rules, quality remains assured so as to not feature heavily in future escape of water claims – the biggest insurance loss category in the domestic and residential sector. We will be reporting on all of these initiatives in early 2018
An extended column will be published at www.
riscauthority.co.uk and
www.frmjournal.com
Dr Jim Glockling is technical director of the FPA and director of RISCAuthority
14 DECEMBER 2017/JANUARY 2018
www.frmjournal.com
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
