In the news release,
“Eight failures that left people of Grenfell Tower at mercy of the inferno”,
Knapton and Dixon (2017) reported the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s
fire incident. Until 1986, all buildings in London adhered to the London building
act which demanded that external walls have a minimum of at least 1 hour of
fire resistance. However, during the Margaret Thatcher’s government, the law
was changed which removed the critical time stipulations. Also, a coroner’s
report in 2013 following a 2009 fire in South London was responded to by
Community Secretary Eric Pickles who reassured that a government review on
building regulations would be published in 2016/17. Till the publication of
Knapton and Dixon’s article, there had been no updated regulation. The physical
aspect of the Grenfell tower was also a vital cause to the fire incident.
Firstly, the claddings were thought to be made from a flammable plastic core,
and the position of the claddings also acted as wind tunnels to spread the fire
upwards. Secondly, there was no central sprinkler system in the building, and
some of the front doors were not fireproof doors. Also, the Grenfell Tower only
had one staircase which made escaping and rescue difficult and lastly, no regular
inspection was being conducted for the building.
All in all, the Knapton and Dixon (2017) news release provides information regarding the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident. However, it fails to mention the critical factor that leads to the other failures. From my perspective, if regular inspections had been conducted on the building, it could have prevented this terrific incident from occurring.
"No regular Inspection" was the most vital failure which leads to the other failures. Had regular inspection be conducted, the chances of other failures occurring would have been minimal. From the Knapton and Dixon’s article, the Grenfell Tower had many fire issues that had been brought up to the relevant authorities. However, nothing had been done to address those issues. This could be supported with another article, "Grenfell fire warnings issues months before blaze, documents show"(Busby, 2018) where it stated that in June 2016, there were warnings issued by the independent assessor and actions were recommended on more than 40 "high-risk" issues within two to three weeks. It is essential and important for planning any maintenance actions to improve the condition and functionality of a building. The main purpose of an inspection is to acquire useful information about the technical performance of a building which includes “structural, physical, and well-functioning building equipment”(Bortini & Forcada, 2018).
From my standpoint, if regular inspections had been conducted for the Grenfell Tower, a fire pumping system would had been installed which Grenfell Tower failed to do as stated in the article. The presence of a fire pumping system is very important when an undesirable fire event occur. They would emit fire containment substances like foam in addition to water. In the article “Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection” (Sobral & Ferreira, 2016), it stated that whenever a fire occurs, and something goes wrong, the operability of the fire pumping system is one of the first issues to be analysed by insurance companies. This demonstrates how imperative the presence of a fire pump system in a building is. It could have saved more lives in the tragic event of Grenfell Tower Inferno.
All in all, the Knapton and Dixon (2017) news release provides information regarding the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident. However, it fails to mention the critical factor that leads to the other failures. From my perspective, if regular inspections had been conducted on the building, it could have prevented this terrific incident from occurring.
"No regular Inspection" was the most vital failure which leads to the other failures. Had regular inspection be conducted, the chances of other failures occurring would have been minimal. From the Knapton and Dixon’s article, the Grenfell Tower had many fire issues that had been brought up to the relevant authorities. However, nothing had been done to address those issues. This could be supported with another article, "Grenfell fire warnings issues months before blaze, documents show"(Busby, 2018) where it stated that in June 2016, there were warnings issued by the independent assessor and actions were recommended on more than 40 "high-risk" issues within two to three weeks. It is essential and important for planning any maintenance actions to improve the condition and functionality of a building. The main purpose of an inspection is to acquire useful information about the technical performance of a building which includes “structural, physical, and well-functioning building equipment”(Bortini & Forcada, 2018).
From my standpoint, if regular inspections had been conducted for the Grenfell Tower, a fire pumping system would had been installed which Grenfell Tower failed to do as stated in the article. The presence of a fire pumping system is very important when an undesirable fire event occur. They would emit fire containment substances like foam in addition to water. In the article “Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection” (Sobral & Ferreira, 2016), it stated that whenever a fire occurs, and something goes wrong, the operability of the fire pumping system is one of the first issues to be analysed by insurance companies. This demonstrates how imperative the presence of a fire pump system in a building is. It could have saved more lives in the tragic event of Grenfell Tower Inferno.
In conclusion, these failures could
have been avoided with regular reviews. Regular inspections are essential to a
building’s general maintenance and it should have been carried out for Grenfell
Tower. Knowing the existing and potential issues is crucial to ensuring the
safety, aesthetics and value of a building. If the potential failures of
Grenfell Tower had been predicted with regular building inspections, corrective
measures or actions could have been implemented, preventing other failures from
occurring. It is also crucial to have mentioned the importance or severity of
each failure to allow future engineers or designers to delve into and learn
from them, preventing such incident from happening again in the future.
Reference:
Knapton, R. &
Dixon, H. (2017, June 16). Eight failures that left people of Grenfell Tower at
mercy of the inferno. Retrieved January 22,2019, fromhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/eight-failures-left-people-grenfell-tower-mercy-inferno/
Busby, M. (2018, August 08). Grenfell fire warnings issued months before blaze, documents show. Retrieved February 10, 2019, fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/08/grenfell-fire-warnings-issued-months-before-blaze-show-documents
Bortini, R. & Forcada, N. (2018,
October 05). Building Inspection System for Evaluating the Technical
Performance of Existing buildings. Retrieved February 03, 2019, fromhttps://ascelibrary-org.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001220
Sobral, J. & Ferreira, L.A. (2016, December). Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection. Retrieved February 3, 2019, fromhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710216301693
Sobral, J. & Ferreira, L.A. (2016, December). Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection. Retrieved February 3, 2019, fromhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710216301693
No comments:
Post a Comment