Snazzy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2016
- Messages
- 951
- Reaction score
- 211
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I believe the system (i.e. mounting the insulation on wooden slats) was probably not illegal in its time, but has long since become so.
Whether it's actually the same stuff as at Grenfell is something I can't find confirmation on but that's irrelevant to its present illegality.
As I outlined in a previous post, the frequently changing owners have each been charged with addressing a known problem but none of them complied.
With the mills of bureaucracy churning as slowly in Germany as they do everywhere else, Grenfell was probably a blessing (excuse me, I'm aware of how awful that sounds) to the tenants of this building. In that the authorities all of a sudden felt compelled to propel their butts faster than has so far been the case.
Apparently so, the cladding is not illegal, because it passed/passes very inadequate tests.
If a match or lighter flame is played upon the aluminium skin of the cladding for a few seconds, the aluminium skin disperses the heat - what little there is! - and the cladding doesn't catch fire. This is one of the original test standards, which is ludicrous and could probably only have been thought up by the industry itself.
If you move the lighter or any hotter heat source under the cladding itself, under the polyethylene, it catches fire within a few seconds. Within a minute's burning it is hot enough to feed off itself, and spread rapidly.
This is how they are testing it at present, in a way which reasonably mimics exposure to a rather small outbreak of fire. Lots of hair-raising stuff about the mechanics of how cladding fires can spread:
Fire Risks From External Cladding Panels ? A Perspective From The UK « Probyn Miers