Technical officer from Siderise gives evidence about cavity barrier testing standards, BS 476 compliance, and product performance in rainscreen cladding systems.
00:00:08 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear from a new witness mr christopher mort of siderise and i am as usual joined by
00:00:20 of siderise and i am as usual joined by my fellow
00:00:21 my fellow colonel members miss surya istafan and mr ali akbar we're now ready to meet today's witness mr mort i'm going to check that he can
00:00:32 mr mort i'm going to check that he can hear me and see me good morning mr mort are you there yes i am
00:00:37 am and you can see me can you and hear me yes i can
00:00:41 yes i can thank you very much indeed um you should have on the screen in front of you a form of affirmation which i understand you're willing to make have you got it there i do so can i ask you please to make the
00:00:52 i do so can i ask you please to make the affirmation by reading out the words on the screen i do solemnly sincere and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that i shall give be the truth the whole truth nothing but
00:01:04 be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth lovely thank you very much indeed um we need to run through a couple of things before you start
00:01:10 you start giving your evidence can i ask you first to confirm that you are alone in the room from which you're giving your evidence i am thank you can you also confirm that
00:01:22 i am thank you can you also confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you
00:01:26 with you thank you and finally can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room
00:01:31 room and that you don't have any other electronic uh equipment with you which is capable of receiving messages that's correct lovely thank you very much now um
00:01:42 much now um you might like to know that your lawyers are in the virtual hearing room in the sense that they can see and hear everything that's going on and they have the power to intervene if
00:01:54 and they have the power to intervene if they think it is central to do so but we have other means of contacting uh the inquiries lawyers and i hope they'll use them
00:02:04 use them i've asked them to keep their microphones and cameras switched off to avoid any technical difficulties um i hope we shouldn't have any problems with sound or vision if we do i'll ask for a short break
00:02:16 if we do i'll ask for a short break while that's when they're ironed out by the technical support team um if you have any problems obviously just to track my attention and we'll deal with them
00:02:26 with them as best we can we're going to have a short break roughly halfway through each session it'll come around about 11 15 in the morning and round about 3 15 in the afternoon
00:02:39 and round about 3 15 in the afternoon so those are scheduled breaks but if you feel that any time you need an additional break will you just say so and we'll
00:02:45 and we'll do our best to accommodate you now before we start is there anything you'd like to raise or to ask me um no nothing at all lovely thank you very much well in that case i'm going to
00:02:56 very much well in that case i'm going to invite miss grange to put some questions to you
00:03:02 yes good morning sports good morning thank you very much for attending today to give your evidence it is very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding anything that i'm asking you in the
00:03:14 anything that i'm asking you in the course of your evidence please just ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way
00:03:19 way and if you need a break at any point please do say so can you also try and keep your voice up so that the transcribers can hear you and take a clear note of your evidence and that also means not nodding or
00:03:32 and that also means not nodding or shaking your head but giving clear answers to the questions now you've made one witness statement to the inquiry if we can go to it it will appear on the screen now it's at sil 50298
00:03:49 there's your statement and if we go on to page 16 within that we can see there that it's dated the 27th of september 2018 is that your signature
00:04:02 2018 is that your signature yes it is and have you read that statement recently yes i have and can you confirm that the contents of it are true and accurate yes they are and have you discussed that
00:04:14 yes they are and have you discussed that statement or the evidence that you're going to give today with anyone before coming here no now let's start with some questions about your background and your experience and qualifications
00:04:25 experience and qualifications now in terms of your academic qualifications if we can look at um paragraph six of your statement on page two
00:04:37 you tell us there that you've got a higher national certificate in manufacturing which you obtained in 1997 and 1998 is that correct yes and you've also got a
00:04:50 yes and you've also got a a higher national diploma hnd in fire engineering which you obtained in 2016 is that correct yes where did you obtain that qualification
00:05:01 where did you obtain that qualification from in 2016 uh south wales university yeah and um just in very general terms what did that qualification entail
00:05:12 did that qualification entail a broad spectrum of fire engineering from
00:05:17 from how fires start occur through structural analysis fire engineering mathematics et cetera et cetera yes yes thank you
00:05:28 et cetera et cetera yes yes thank you and when did you begin studying for that qualification you said you obtained it in 2016. how long before that had
00:05:35 that had were you actually undertaking that qualification um it was three years prior to that right yeah so from 2013 on a part-time basis on a part-time yes
00:05:47 on a part-time basis on a part-time yes fitting it in with your day job yes correct yeah um if we go back to page one paragraph four
00:05:54 four of your witness statement you tell us that you started in the facade industry uh in 1998 working for denver aluminium
00:06:05 uh in 1998 working for denver aluminium limited
00:06:06 limited is that correct that's correct and what was your role there at denver aluminium limited
00:06:12 limited i was a facade designer facade designer yeah yes and then in 2000 you moved to vision aluminium limited as a
00:06:23 vision aluminium limited as a facade design manager is that correct that's correct
00:06:29 and were you involved in any fire testing in those roles when you were the facade design manager um
00:06:37 um at denver no when i worked for vision aluminium
00:06:40 aluminium i was trained at sugar facades as been able to design their fire facade system which was a
00:06:51 their fire facade system which was a curtain wall system right yeah and how do you spell the shoot you said shuuko facades uh training yes s-c-h-u-c-o yeah thank you and then in 2002
00:07:05 yeah thank you and then in 2002 you joined siderise as the product manager and marketing manager for the technical and commercial departments is that correct
00:07:16 departments is that correct yes can you explain what that role involves that product manager and marketing manager for the technical commercial departments it was basically
00:07:27 commercial departments it was basically looking after the um side rise
00:07:32 customer base yeah and what was that siderise customer base uh
00:07:40 uh predominantly curtin walling facade companies
00:07:44 companies and other building envelope companies architects consultants yeah thank you and is it right that you remained in that role at siderise until
00:07:56 remained in that role at siderise until 2007 when you went to work for hilti that's correct and what role did you have at hilti um building facade specialist basically the
00:08:09 building facade specialist basically the same role as i had with siderise um hilty had formed a division
00:08:14 division yeah which i joined yeah and you stayed at hillt until you then rejoined siderise as their sales and technical engineer two years later in 2009 is that correct that's correct
00:08:27 in 2009 is that correct that's correct yeah
00:08:29 yeah and then two years after that in 2011 you took on the role of technical officer for fire with insider eyes is that right that's right yeah so just to surmise would it be fair to say
00:08:41 just to surmise would it be fair to say you've got around 20 years experience working in the facade industry either as a facade
00:08:46 a facade manager designer through to being a technical officer yes and is it right that you were also employed by alcoa for just under seven years between
00:08:58 alcoa for just under seven years between 1991 and 1998 is that right
00:09:05 what was your role at alcoa first joined as a tool maker in the tool room and then progressed through to the design office
00:09:18 and what kind of design work were you involved in alcoa i'm designing um aluminium extrusions right yes and then if we look at
00:09:32 right yes and then if we look at paragraph six of your witness statement now on page two
00:09:38 if we can have that back up you tell us that you sit on various industry committees so we looked at the first part of that and then in the second line you begin to tell us
00:09:49 second line you begin to tell us what these committees are so just just going through them you sit on the association for specialist fire protection known as the aspf yes yeah the asfp yes
00:10:03 aspf yes yeah the asfp yes sorry asfp and you also sit on the um british standards institution standards development committee for non-load-bearing separating elements yes
00:10:16 non-load-bearing separating elements yes yes that committee is called the fsh 22 is that correct yes 22 yeah 22 7 sorry and you also sit on a european committee for
00:10:29 also sit on a european committee for standardization and you tell us that you sit on the committee for cavity barriers known as tg-9
00:10:35 tg-9 and the committee for facades known as tg-8 on behalf of the bsi is that correct
00:10:40 correct that's correct and is it right that you're also an affiliate member of the institution of fire engineers yes and then at paragraph seven below that on the on
00:10:53 at paragraph seven below that on the on the screen in front of us you tell us uh what your role as technical officer for fire at siderise has involved and you describe the current
00:11:05 describe the current your that role as including product development arranging and attending testing including testing relating to fire thermal or acoustics and also dealing
00:11:16 thermal or acoustics and also dealing with customers you say you get involved if a question or issue requires specific technical input
00:11:25 are you um still in that role as technical officer for fire at siderise
00:11:31 siderise um the role has evolved i'm now technical development director sideways technical development director when did you take
00:11:42 you take up that appointment uh last january yeah don't worry and can you help us um and we'll look at it in more detail later but did you write
00:11:53 later but did you write or assist in writing any of the marketing literature or installation guidance that cider eyes published for its cavity barriers i would have technically reviewed the
00:12:04 i would have technically reviewed the documents yeah so you do a technical review of those documents
00:12:08 documents great now just some questions about um previous cladding fires at the time that you were involved in the grenfell tower project that was in 2015 and again we'll come and look at
00:12:20 in 2015 and again we'll come and look at your involvement in the grenfell project later at that time were you aware that there was a long history of external cladding facade fires
00:12:28 fires on high-rise residential buildings both in the uk
00:12:32 in the uk and internationally abroad i was aware of some uk fires that led to the authoring of br135 on the development of 8414 yes i was
00:12:45 on the development of 8414 yes i was also aware of some fires overseas yes which uh domestic fires were you aware of that led to br135
00:12:52 br135 um there was one in scotland in stirling from the top of my head i can't remember the specific yeah is that the garnet caught fire in irving
00:13:04 yes yes had you heard of the lachenal house fire in southwark in london in 2009 yes i had yeah and in terms of the buyers that you
00:13:15 yeah and in terms of the buyers that you were aware of internationally can you help us what fires were you aware of at that time um just what came on news media um specific dates
00:13:28 um specific dates can't recollect but fired maybe in turkey
00:13:33 turkey some in dubai but these were of uh what seemed to be flammable cladding right i see that was your understanding was it that that was
00:13:44 was it that that was flammable cladding that had contributed to those fires yes so do i take it that you were aware of a spate of fires in high-rise buildings in the uae um in
00:13:56 the uae um in were you aware of those as early as 2012 2013
00:13:59 2013 or would it be more like 2015 that you became aware of those i can't really recollect okay
00:14:08 did those cladding fires ever cause you or anyone else with insider eyes to reflect and to question the way in which it was marketing and promoting its cavity barriers
00:14:20 cavity barriers no now
00:14:24 no now when carrying out your role did you have some familiarity with the building regulations and the associated practical guidance in approved document b on on fire yes
00:14:38 and when undertaking your role as technical officer with insider eyes were you familiar with the guidance in approved document be about the performance and location of cavity barriers
00:14:47 barriers yes and were you familiar with the guidance about the b3 part 4 functional requirement on internal fire and smoke spread in concealed spaces
00:14:59 concealed spaces yes and the guidance in section 9 of adb yes and were you also aware of the guidance about the b4 functional requirement on external fire spread in section 12 of adb
00:15:11 spread in section 12 of adb yes were you aware that the guidance in section 9 of approved document b required at paragraph 9.3 that cavity barriers should be provided to close the
00:15:23 barriers should be provided to close the edge of carriage cavities including around openings yes and that guidance was also clear in diagram
00:15:32 diagram 33 wasn't it of agv let's just have a look at that just to remind everyone of that diagram if we go to cld 50224 at page 82.
00:15:50 here we have diagram 33 that appears in section 9
00:15:54 section 9 of approved document b dealing with effectively compartmentation and we can see that there's various shaded parts on this diagram including some green
00:16:07 on this diagram including some green which indicates fire stopping and some gray shading which indicates cavity barriers
00:16:13 barriers so can i take it that you were um familiar with this guidance when you were a technical officer for siderise from 2011 onwards yes yeah and we can see that under
00:16:26 yes yeah and we can see that under the key to the diagram where it says cavity barrier at the bottom it's got reference there to table a1 item 15
00:16:34 item 15 in approved document b and i just want to go to that table now um it's at page 124 of adb if we go on to that
00:16:45 of adb if we go on to that so um this is table a1 we can see it's in the title of it in green at the top
00:16:53 top specific provisions of tests for fire resistance of elements of structure etc and again can i take it that you were familiar with this table at the time you were technical officer
00:17:05 were technical officer yes and effectively what we see is various different parts of the building and in this table it tells you what the fire resistance elements need to be
00:17:17 fire resistance elements need to be for those parts of the structure that's correct isn't it yes it is and if we go over the page
00:17:27 we can see on the next page um just note at the top we can see it says part of building and then we can see the heading minimum provisions when
00:17:39 see the heading minimum provisions when tested to the relevant part of bs476 and there's a little footnote which we'll come back to and it also makes clear in brackets that the figures we're seeing here are minutes that's
00:17:50 we're seeing here are minutes that's correct isn't it yes it is and then if we go down to item 15
00:17:56 15 in this list we get the reference that we saw earlier in diagram 33 taking you to cavity barriers and we can see that there it's saying
00:18:10 and we can see that there it's saying it's clear if we can see the top of the page as well that cavity barriers need to have
00:18:15 to have 30 minutes integrity and 15 minutes insulation that's correct isn't it yes it is
00:18:24 yes thank you so you can see the load-bearing capacity column isn't applicable because cavity barriers are not load-bearing are they
00:18:35 not load-bearing are they no they're not and so the requirements of adb were 30 minutes integrity 15 minutes installation and then that footnote at the top which
00:18:46 and then that footnote at the top which relates to the part of bs 476 that's applicable if we go down to that footnote 1 at the bottom of this page we can see in the notes there number one
00:19:00 we can see in the notes there number one what it does is it tells you which parts of bs 476 may be applicable you've got part 21 for load bearing elements part 22 for non-load bearing elements
00:19:11 part 22 for non-load bearing elements 23 for fire protecting suspended ceilings and 24 for ventilation ducts do you see that there yes i do now it's right isn't it that bs 476
00:19:22 now it's right isn't it that bs 476 part 20 is the general british standard which sits with those ones listed there and that contains general principles relating to the method of determining
00:19:33 relating to the method of determining the fire resistance of elements of construction yes part 20 is the parent test document and then these are
00:19:44 document and then these are supplementary standards for testing supplementary elements
00:19:49 elements yes thank you they refer back to power 20. yes thank you that's very helpful
00:19:57 helpful now um what was your understanding when considering this table about which part of uh bs 476 in this series that we see at
00:20:08 uh bs 476 in this series that we see at note 1 was relevant to the testing of cavity barriers
00:20:13 from 21 22 23 or 24 needed none of those are applicable
00:20:21 um 21 is for load bearing elements part 22
00:20:26 22 um for non loaded elements but within the scope
00:20:30 the scope it's for testing roller shutters petitions
00:20:34 petitions et cetera there is no mention of cavity parrots in there so when in discussion with a ucas accredited test laboratory they test using the principles of part
00:20:45 they test using the principles of part 20.
00:20:47 20. now the failure criteria in 21 22 23 24 in terms of integrity and insulation are uniform they're the same
00:20:58 are uniform they're the same a uniform yes i understand yes thank you that's helpful and we're going to come on and discuss this in more detail but just to summarize what you're telling us there is that although it refers to the
00:21:09 there is that although it refers to the relevant part of 476 in the table in fact for cavity barriers none of those parts actually refer to the testing of cavity barriers do they
00:21:20 barriers do they no that's correct so i think what you're telling us and we'll come on to this is that for cavity barriers testing has been done to the general principles contained in part 20 is that correct
00:21:32 contained in part 20 is that correct that's correct
00:21:37 part 22 for non-loaded bearing elements would there be any aspects of that which you would consider relevant to the testing of cavity barriers
00:21:49 not particularly because it's dealing with roller shutters and petitions when i mean petitions we mean petition walls
00:21:57 walls rather than uh small elements the past failure criteria in part 22 is referred back to part 20 for the insulation and integrity
00:22:08 part 20 for the insulation and integrity um it's the same within the en suite of test standards that refer back to the parent en 1363 part one yes
00:22:19 en 1363 part one yes yes and we'll come on to see in some of the test reports the way in which the principles in the tests you've just explained have been used in the testing of cavity barriers yes
00:22:31 of cavity barriers yes yes yeah now just um to help the panel and um anyone else watching i just want us to be very clear what is meant by integrity and insulation as we saw in
00:22:44 integrity and insulation as we saw in that
00:22:45 that in that uh table is it right that integrity
00:22:49 integrity in crude terms is the ability to contain fire and stop flames and hot gases from physically passing the material in question that's correct
00:23:00 the material in question that's correct um a more technical definition which we see
00:23:03 see in bs476 part 20 would be the ability of a specimen of a separating element to contain a fire to specified criteria for collapse freedom from holds cracks and fissures
00:23:15 freedom from holds cracks and fissures and sustaining flaming on the unexposed face
00:23:18 face do you agree with that yes yes and then in contrast where we talk about insulation in crude terms that's about the thermal tran
00:23:29 tran transmittance of heat isn't it and the materials ability to prevent the passage of radiant heat yes and in technical terms it's described in bs 476 part 20 as the
00:23:41 described in bs 476 part 20 as the ability of a specimen of a separating element to restrict the temperature rise of the unexposed face to below specified levels
00:23:50 levels again can we agree on that yes we can yeah and just for completeness uh in terms of definitions if we can go back to adb
00:24:01 back to adb again and have the last document up on the page that's clg five zeros two two four i now want to just look
00:24:08 just look briefly at page one four three
00:24:16 this is appendix e of approved document b where we see some definitions and i just wanted to draw attention to um at the bottom of that first column
00:24:27 um at the bottom of that first column can you see there's a definition there of cavity barrier yes and it says a construction other than
00:24:34 than a smoke curtain provided to close a concealed space against penetration of smoke or flame and then if we go up to the top all provided to restrict the movement of
00:24:45 provided to restrict the movement of smoke or flame within such a space do you see that yes and again were you familiar with that definition while you were technical officer yes it was
00:24:57 now i'm going to ask you in detail in the next section of my questioning about the testing which cider eyes carried out on its open state horizontal cavity
00:25:08 on its open state horizontal cavity barriers those with an intumescent strip but before we do that i just want to remind the panel and the listeners
00:25:14 listeners exactly what these barriers are if we can go
00:25:17 can go to dr lane's phase 1 report this is blas 608 page 42.
00:25:30 and here we have two um helpful figures we can see at the top uh a figure 8.45 this is one of the
00:25:41 uh a figure 8.45 this is one of the horizontal intermediate cavity barriers as installed at grenfell tower yes yes we're looking at the picture yes yes and um we can see an extract
00:25:54 and um we can see an extract from siderise's product literature just below that in figure 8.46 and again that that is a an open state horizontal cavity barrier yes
00:26:05 yes yes it is and i just want to be absolutely clear what these are so you can see it from the label in the top picture um it states there in the label black
00:26:16 um it states there in the label black weather resistant polymer film encapsulating leading edge continuous high performance intumescent strip installed behind this film so is it right that at that leading edge what you get with these barriers is a
00:26:28 what you get with these barriers is a high performance in intumescence strip yes yes it is and the purpose of that strip is this right is that upon heating that strip expands to fill a gap that is
00:26:41 expands to fill a gap that is has otherwise been left within the cladding system yes it has and indeed you can you can see
00:26:50 see that gap that's more clearly in the product literature below where you can see
00:26:55 see that gap just sits back from what might be the face of where the cladding panel would go
00:27:01 would go and these are to be contrasted aren't they with what are known as full fill cavity barriers which are blocks of material that simply fill the whole space yes
00:27:12 whole space yes that's correct yeah
00:27:17 and so just going back to these horizontal cavity barriers can you just explain in your own words how these are intended to work
00:27:27 they uh they're installed with a nominal air gap to meet the functionality of the normal use of a rain screen system
00:27:38 of a rain screen system where the back of the rain screen has to be drained and ventilated then should there be a requirement for it to be a sealed full seal
00:27:50 for it to be a sealed full seal then at between 125 to 130 degrees the intumescent exfoliates expands across the gap to seal the gap um to prevent
00:28:04 to seal the gap um to prevent the passage of fire to the higher levels for the duration of 30 minutes that is providing that the external panel remains in place yes and again i think we'll
00:28:18 in place yes and again i think we'll come on to this that that last sentence there that you just stated you said that is providing that the external panel remains in place it's vitally important isn't it in terms of how these panels operate that there
00:28:30 of how these panels operate that there is
00:28:30 is an external face for them to butt up against
00:28:34 against if they're to operate properly that's the fundamental principles of all fire stopping not just cavity barriers
00:28:41 barriers that the substrate that which they're installed
00:28:44 installed has to remain for the same duration of the fire period as the the firestop or the cavity barrier yeah yeah
00:28:52 yeah now um so as i've said i'm going to focus uh
00:28:55 focus uh a lot of my questioning this morning on the testing of these open state cavity barriers these intumescent cavity barriers and at this point can we just look at mr
00:29:07 and at this point can we just look at mr swales's witness statement to the inquiry this is a sil 502
00:29:16 now is it right can you just confirm that mr swales is the chief commercial officer at siderise yes yes that's correct and this is his
00:29:27 yes that's correct and this is his witness statement to the inquiry and uh he tells us in this statement that he's been chief commercial officer at siderise since 2013 uh for the transcript that's at paragraph
00:29:38 paragraph five on page two i want to look first with you at page 11 paragraph 44
00:29:59 so he says prior to 2006 cyrodiiles cavity barriers were verified by the loss prevention council we'll come back to that in a moment and he says the use of rain screen was still
00:30:10 he says the use of rain screen was still relatively uncommon in the early 90s consequently the demand for dedicated cavity barrier products was infrequent stroke negligible due to the paradox of cavity barriers
00:30:21 due to the paradox of cavity barriers needing to be installed with an air gap to maintain ventilation versus the integrity criterion required for complementation the advice at the time from the loss prevention council was that it was not
00:30:32 prevention council was that it was not possible to satisfy both requirements and then he says from the mid 90s we received more inquiries for this type of application
00:30:47 and he says as such in july 1997 i requested that the lpc the loss prevention council confirmed their position and then he refers to a document which i'll take you to in a moment
00:30:58 i'll take you to in a moment this was used to support the use of an ad hoc assembly with standard cavity barriers fitted to leave a 25 millimeter gap from this time to 2002 from recall
00:31:09 from this time to 2002 from recall there were a small number of projects literally one or two where we supplied product for a quotes rain screen application and then he goes on in march 2002 we
00:31:20 and then he goes on in march 2002 we prepared a data sheet which illustrated standard
00:31:23 standard cw curtain wall product with an integral intumescent material and he attaches that data sheet and then if we go on and read from 45 he
00:31:34 and then if we go on and read from 45 he says
00:31:34 says also from approximately 2002 in this early product development phase we evaluated a number of different intermediate materials through
00:31:43 through ad hoc material testing now just pausing there is is it right that from around 2002 onwards when you first joined siderise
00:31:55 onwards when you first joined siderise the company was beginning to develop open state cavity barriers for use in rain screen applications yes and based on your own involvement in the industry in the mid 90s were you
00:32:07 the industry in the mid 90s were you aware of a growing demand for such a product
00:32:11 product in the mid 90s i was involved with predominantly curtin we did the companies i worked for we were curtin wall specialists not arranged specialists i see so approximately when did you
00:32:22 i see so approximately when did you start to become aware that there was a growing demand for open state cavity barriers in the market
00:32:30 market when i joined sideways
00:32:34 were you aware after you joined siderise that
00:32:38 that sidewise had sought advice from the lpc the loss prevention council about these open state cavity barriers yes it was we're going to go to that
00:32:49 yes it was we're going to go to that letter from the lpc in a moment and but just before we do that um we saw in the first sentence of paragraph 45 that mr swales was referring to ad hoc material testing
00:33:03 was referring to ad hoc material testing of different intumescent materials can you help us what if any involvement did you have in such ad hoc testing of those intumescent materials
00:33:14 intumescent materials um
00:33:17 very little in the very early days
00:33:22 it was more 2006 onwards i was more involved with tested right so do you know much about what that ad hoc testing was of different intumescent materials
00:33:36 was of different intumescent materials not in the very early development phase okay
00:33:41 um now if we go back to mr swales's witness statement on the page that we were on um looking at paragraph 45 on page 11.
00:33:56 in the second sentence of paragraph 45 he says
00:34:00 he says we formally developed redeveloped the product in 2006 via an npdi new product development introduction project
00:34:12 introduction project and he goes on to say that there was a concept approval meeting on the 1st of july 2006. can we just look at the agenda for that concept approval meeting it's
00:34:25 sil402586
00:34:33 now we can see there the heading and the date first of july 2006 on the right hand side and we can see that the meeting was called by
00:34:44 called by you and you appear to be the note taker as well yes oh yes and the attendees included well it says steve bond
00:34:55 included well it says steve bond technical director and chris mort technical manager was it just the two of you at this meeting
00:35:02 meeting yes it was and we can see from the agenda items below agenda topics that um you were responsible we can see that the
00:35:14 you were responsible we can see that the initial cm you're responsible for application description that's the second one down and then in the fourth one down we can see statutory requirements sorry statutory regulatory requirements
00:35:27 sorry statutory regulatory requirements has also got your initial next to it is that correct yes it is so were you responsible for the statutory and regulatory requirements around this new product development yes
00:35:40 new product development yes and then if we turn to page two we can see
00:35:46 that under the there's a heading there agenda topics and we can see the first part underneath that there's a heading product concept name
00:35:59 product concept name and then there's various notes under the discussion so that these appear to be minutes of the meeting now the rest of these minutes appear then in a different document if we turn to sil40250
00:36:18 would you agree these appear to be a continuation of the minutes of that meeting
00:36:23 meeting yes i do yeah thank you
00:36:28 yeah and just to be clear the agenda items match up completely and if we look at the heading at the bottom of that page we can see the heading statutory regulatory requirements with your
00:36:40 regulatory requirements with your initial next to it and under discussion it reads product to meet with the requirements of a modified
00:36:48 modified bs 476 part 20 test and as a result of a positive test compliance with approved document b 2000 edition incorporating the 2000 and 2002 amendments
00:37:00 2002 amendments in particular sections 9 complementation and 10
00:37:03 and 10 concealed spaces cavities so that's what we see under the discussion and as we've already discussed bs 476
00:37:14 and as we've already discussed bs 476 part 20
00:37:15 part 20 you described it very well as that the parent
00:37:19 parent of the fire resistant testing yes setting up general principles yes and
00:37:27 yes and can we agree that it describes a procedure for laboratory testing for the determination of fire resistance of elements of construction including
00:37:36 including failure criteria for integrity and insulation yes it does
00:37:42 so looking back to the minutes of this meeting can you explain precisely how you were going to modify that british standard when going about this testing
00:37:56 um we wouldn't modify the actual standard
00:38:00 standard um because as a company you can't modify a standard and the test procedure has a requirement for integrity that you have gap gauges
00:38:13 that you have gap gauges and should a gap gauge be be able to be applied to a specimen prior to the start of a test then technically the test shouldn't be started yes now just
00:38:24 shouldn't be started yes now just pausing there you talk about gap gauges and we'll come to that in the documents in a moment is a gap gauge effectively a metal rod that is inserted into the specimen and if it gets through
00:38:36 into the specimen and if it gets through gaps that's a failure yes yes thank you sorry carry on what i'd like to understand is how were you going to modify the
00:38:47 how were you going to modify the requirements of that test to test the intumescent open state cavity barriers it was
00:38:56 it was a discussion between ourselves on warrenton
00:38:59 warrenton fire ucas accredited laboratory on how you can conduct the test for an open state cavity barrier that's been demanded by the market
00:39:09 market of brain screens and still be able to perform the test on a furnace and we came to an agreement that whilst the integrity
00:39:23 that whilst the integrity technically fails before you start the test
00:39:27 test that they would record and monitor the closure of the intumescent to reinstate the integrity value of the product
00:39:36 product yes i understand and again we're going to come on to the testing that fire did of these products for cider eyes um but i think so what you're
00:39:48 cider eyes um but i think so what you're explaining is that they agreed to take data following the closure of the cavity by the intumescent yes
00:39:59 the intumescent yes yeah when you start the test the recording starts from time zero so they record all the data from time zero
00:40:07 zero yes they could monitor the thermocouple is actually attached to the cavity barrier itself yeah so just looking back to the minutes though
00:40:15 though can you explain with that form of testing
00:40:18 testing how you were going to modify the requirements of bs 476 part 20. like i said we did not modify the requirements of bs
00:40:29 we did not modify the requirements of bs 476.20
00:40:30 476.20 we had open discussions with the ucas accredited laboratory of how we could use the principles of bs476
00:40:37 bs476 in order to test a cavity barrier that was being requested by the market at the time and we were fully aware that the integrity criterion was not met at the start of the test yes
00:40:50 was not met at the start of the test yes so thinking back to these minutes what principles of 476 testing did you think could be transposed into the testing of these cavity barriers
00:41:01 barriers all elements except for the gap gauge at the very start gab gauges cotton pads for measuring integrity could be
00:41:12 for measuring integrity could be introduced after the start of the test no issues this is not uncommon um across fire resistance testing there are
00:41:25 across fire resistance testing there are um fire tests of other elements that like dampers that need to activate and react to temperature that the
00:41:36 and react to temperature that the integrity criterion whilst there for the duration of the test in the first five minutes the laboratory have got the responsibility to establish a controlled furnace
00:41:48 a controlled furnace environment in terms of temperature and pressure
00:41:52 pressure so in the first five minutes of a test that is the fundamental principle of the test standard and that allows for instance to react it allows for
00:42:04 for instance to react it allows for uh intumescence around those to react in those window uh when they test windows for
00:42:11 for instance that flare to react dampers to activate
00:42:14 activate so it's not an uncommon uh principle okay just going back to the minutes we could have the minute back up on the page that we were just looking at
00:42:38 yes thank you we can see that it's referring there so it says product to meet with the requirements of a modified bs 476 part 20 test
00:42:48 20 test and then it says and as a result of a positive test compliance with approved document b and then it refers to various parts and why was it considered that that testing
00:43:00 testing to some of the requirements of 476 part 20 but not all of them would satisfy adb can you explain that
00:43:11 would satisfy adb can you explain that it would be proof of performance for both integrity and insulation to meet the 3015 requirement once each messenger is activated
00:43:25 i see what had led you to the conclusion that testing in that manner could be satisfactory evidence of compliance with approved document b and the building regulations functional
00:43:36 and the building regulations functional requirements um there have been various discussions with
00:43:43 with uh other bodies within the industry um cwct for one um on how as a manufacturer of pacifier protection
00:43:56 manufacturer of pacifier protection could we meet the demands of cavity barriers within brain screens and this
00:44:01 and this was a way of proving the performance as previously assessed by the lpc in the lpc assessment document
00:44:12 in the lpc assessment document right i see well we'll let we'll come back to some of that in a moment because we're going to look at what the cwc test cd cwct said a little
00:44:24 test cd cwct said a little later staying with this document can we turn to page three of it now
00:44:32 there's a heading in the middle of that page project assigned an owner and it says underneath as the project is a fire product then the best owner would be
00:44:41 be chris chris to be project owner so um can you explain why were you the most appropriate person in 2006 to take on this fire product
00:44:54 to take on this fire product ownership because i was involved in fire testing that would be i wasn't testing other products for the
00:45:05 i wasn't testing other products for the business
00:45:06 business right what other products were you involved in testing standard um
00:45:12 uh cw products do you mean standard curtain walling type cross products when you refer to cw yes yeah i see so you had some
00:45:23 yes yeah i see so you had some experience of testing with curtin walling products so that's why you were considered to be the appropriate person to take on this new product planning yes that's correct yeah
00:45:36 planning yes that's correct yeah and we can see under action items just below that in the same box it says chris to complete the new product
00:45:44 product information planning and review sheet for this product yes yes and then the minutes conclude under project approved and accepted for development
00:45:55 development under conclusions so it's the second heading down in that last bigger box it says this all business and ethical requirements are met by this proposed product therefore
00:46:07 met by this proposed product therefore this is approved for development can you help us what does that mean um it meets with
00:46:18 um it meets with um the compliance it meets with what uh sideways strive to do is offer fully tested
00:46:30 tested products to the market
00:46:35 i see and and specifically when you when there's reference there to meets all ethical requirements what ethical requirements were considered at that stage
00:46:45 stage i can't recollect
00:46:51 let's turn now to the loss prevention council letter that mr swales referred to in his
00:46:58 to in his witness statement this is a sil 50285
00:47:09 so this is a letter dated at 29th of july 1997
00:47:14 july 1997 that was sent to mr swales and if we just look sorry if we could just see back at the bottom the author of the letter
00:47:24 letter is somebody called rh earl who's a senior consultant at the loss prevention council and i just want to read the first paragraph
00:47:35 i just want to read the first paragraph at this stage so the author says the cavity between curtain walls and fire compartment walls floors need to be sealed within a cavity barrier to the same fire rating as the
00:47:47 barrier to the same fire rating as the compartment wall or floor in the national building regulations the exact requirements for these cavity barriers is ambiguous and no mention is made of movement between the curtain wall and the compartment wall or floor in a fire
00:48:00 compartment wall or floor in a fire situation
00:48:01 situation in the loss prevention council design guide for the fire protection of buildings
00:48:06 buildings it is assumed that the cavity barrier will take up any movement between the elements of construction then it says this a particular problem is rain screens
00:48:17 is rain screens where the cavity barrier cannot fill the full width of the cavity as the rain screen requires a typical 25 millimeter space to carry out its function
00:48:26 function where rain screens are fitted it is our understanding that the fire brigade assume that the cavity barriers between the rain screens and the compartment floors
00:48:35 floors are ineffective and that therefore up to four floors could be involved in a fire before it is brought under control
00:48:45 now just just pausing there um when it states there that the rain screen requires a typical 25 millimeter space to carry out its function uh
00:48:57 space to carry out its function uh is that because it somewhere in some range screen systems it would need to be able to allow the drainage of water behind it and to provide ventilation to the system
00:49:08 the system that's correct now as to that information about how the fire brigade viewed cavity barriers and their effectiveness in a rain screen system
00:49:20 rain screen system can you help us to what extent was that taken on board by cider eyes when developing its products
00:49:28 um that's why we were looking to test the character barriers to prove their performance i see so um at the time this letter was written was written
00:49:40 written was written um is it your understanding that there was this general concern that cavity berries would be ineffective in rain screens
00:49:48 screens um at the time with this letter written i wasn't part of sideways i understand but um did you become aware of this
00:49:55 of this letter when you began working at cider eyes
00:49:59 eyes yes i did and did you read it and take on board what it was saying um to a point yes when you say to a point what do you mean by that um it's
00:50:13 by that um it's uh furthered only um the letter where um where it confirms that the
00:50:26 where it confirms that the the cafeteria variable would restrict the movement of smoke or hot gases as much as practical yes we'll come to that second paragraph sorry we'll come to that second paragraph in a moment just sticking with
00:50:39 paragraph in a moment just sticking with that the
00:50:39 that the end part of that first paragraph where rain screens are fitted it's our understanding that the fire brigade are seen at the cavity barriers between the rain screens and the compartment floors are ineffective and
00:50:50 compartment floors are ineffective and that therefore up to four floors could be involved in a fire before it's brought under your control um was that your understanding when you first began working for cider eyes that that was the fire brigade's assumption about cavity
00:51:03 fire brigade's assumption about cavity barriers in range screen systems i don't recollect making any specific attention to that i see
00:51:14 to what extent can you help us as to whether that um statement there and that assumption by the fire brigade was taken into account in terms of the way siderise promoted and marketed its products
00:51:25 promoted and marketed its products marine screen systems i i can't from the date of that later now and then as you've said the letter goes on in the second paragraph um it starts by saying we've looked at
00:51:38 um it starts by saying we've looked at the
00:51:39 the dane architectural systems limited drawings and it gives the numbers of the drawings
00:51:44 drawings for the contract at wellesley road croydon
00:51:47 croydon we confirm that your ms cavity barrier system is suitable for this application for sealing the cavities between the curtain walling and compartment floors and the columns compartment walls
00:51:58 compartment walls and then it says this where the rain screens are fitted a 25 millimeter wide gap must be left between the outer edge of the cavity barriers and the rain screen so that the rain screen can fulfill its function
00:52:09 screen can fulfill its function although the cavity barrier will not seal the cavity at the range screens it will restrict the movement of smoke and hot gases as much as is practical
00:52:23 as much as is practical do you see that yes so are you saying that cider eyes relied on that
00:52:30 on that opinion by the loss prevention council when it was developing its open state cavity barriers yes
00:52:40 so they're saying there can we agree that it's going to restrict the movement of smoke and hot gases as much as is practical but that's all isn't it
00:52:48 isn't it yes it is
00:52:54 and did you ever consider how this new product that you were developing would address those concerns as expressed in the letter
00:53:05 from 2006 onwards when i was involved with the testing and i pushed
00:53:12 i pushed the laboratories to test the products then yes
00:53:17 yeah you say there and i push the laboratories to test the products we'll come to this in a moment but um is it right that the laboratories were somewhat reluctant
00:53:28 somewhat reluctant to engage in this testing at first the reluctance was based on the health and safety
00:53:39 on the health and safety of conducting the test within a laboratory it wasn't a reluctance to test the product
00:53:46 product but it was they needed to justify how they could start a furnace that rises to 600 degrees in the first five minutes with a 25 millimeter open gap
00:53:59 minutes with a 25 millimeter open gap right so there was a clear understanding between us and warrant and fire that the test would run if there was any issues
00:54:09 issues that would cause any health and safety issues to the laboratory they would stop the test immediately through the emergency stop procedure that is the only reluctance there is a there was a clear
00:54:22 synergy it was between ourselves and the test laboratories and others to try and get um this sort of product tested because
00:54:33 because there was more demand coming from the market
00:54:36 market for this type of product yeah you've mentioned
00:54:40 mentioned quite a few times now that demand coming from the market in reality is that what was driving this that there was a demand for an open state cavity barrier so you needed
00:54:51 needed to go and do some testing to try and show that
00:54:55 show that that was a safe product to be using correct
00:54:58 correct the if you were to use full felt um character barriers they were rejected on the fact that they trapped water and could cause
00:55:09 could cause other issues for a rain screen rather than the it was expected that the passive fire protection industry would come up with a way of allowing the ventilation drainage of
00:55:21 of allowing the ventilation drainage of the system so sideways weren't alone in developing products for the market at the wrong this time i see and where it says it was expected that the passive fire protection industry would come up with a way of allowing the
00:55:34 would come up with a way of allowing the ventilation and drainage of the system um who was placing that expectation upon you
00:55:41 you it was coming directly from the facade industry
00:55:44 industry and other guidance out there uh the likes of cwct where um the uh a lot of range screen systems are
00:55:55 the uh a lot of range screen systems are drained and ventilated as we've already discussed through the back face
00:55:59 face of the system there's a requirement to keep the insulation in the back face dry the insulation is keeping the building warm that needs to be kept dry there can't be any capillary action going back to the
00:56:10 any capillary action going back to the structure
00:56:11 structure which couldn't allow for damp on the inside of the building et cetera et cetera i see yes thank you now just sticking with this uh new product information
00:56:22 product information planning um if we can turn to a document
00:56:28 sil408401
00:56:40 this is a npi new product information planning and review sheet dated the 15th of july 2006.
00:56:51 of july 2006. now do you remember completing this document
00:56:54 document yes i do and we look at the project owner
00:57:00 owner um it changed to uh peter batchelor yes this was finished when i had left the business i see
00:57:11 business i see so you began this and then he finished it off yeah when you moved to hilti yes correct yeah and then we can see identical wording on the left hand side
00:57:22 the left hand side third box down under statutory regulatory requirements product to meet with the requirements of a modified bs476 part 20 test and as a result of a positive test compliant with approved document b
00:57:33 compliant with approved document b 2000 edition and then it refers to particular parts of that um had you done any further investigation between the concept approval meeting and completing this
00:57:46 approval meeting and completing this planning and review document as to the suitability of doing some modified bs 476 20 testing there was discussions between
00:57:57 20 testing there was discussions between ourselves and warrant and fire on how we could test um a kafka barrier with an insurance and with a 25 millimeter cap so yes and can you help us who were you
00:58:08 yes and can you help us who were you having those discussions with at warrington fire it would have been with
00:58:16 um chris johnson oh at the time yeah i see so you've been having some discussions with warrington fire about
00:58:27 discussions with warrington fire about how you could use parts of the bs476 part 20 test principles in a test of these intumescent cavity barriers yes
00:58:39 barriers yes yeah and
00:58:42 yeah and if we just look at this point at um your witness statement paragraph 38 uh page 10 of your statement
00:58:55 i think we've probably already covered this but um you state we can see four lines down there's a
00:59:03 there's a line on the right beginning testing to bs 476 part 20. you say this testing to bs 476 part 20 has been established for many years though it was recognized as not being
00:59:14 though it was recognized as not being ideal as the standard cannot be applied directly to open state cavity barriers
00:59:22 and and that's for the reason that we've already discussed is it that uh under part part 20 of 476 these open state cavity barriers would automatically fail certain requirements
00:59:34 automatically fail certain requirements yes it's the um the gap gauge um issue the insurmountants react on the furnace
00:59:41 furnace test very very quickly within 10 to 20 seconds
00:59:45 seconds of ignition on the furnace um so it's that initial before you start the furnace you have an open gap right so
00:59:56 you have an open gap right so technically you shouldn't start the furnace with an open gap right because of the health and safety condition requirements yes i see yeah and we're going to come on to look at some of the test reports in a moment
01:00:07 at some of the test reports in a moment to see what data you were getting from that mr swail says in his witness statement we don't need to go to it but for the transcript that's at paragraph 39 but to his knowledge cider eyes were the first in the industry
01:00:19 first in the industry to test open state cavity barriers is that your understanding as well yes
01:00:27 so when you were doing this there was no precedent
01:00:30 precedent for testing open state cavity barriers uh
01:00:33 uh when you were embarking on this project not that i was aware of and then just looking back at paragraph
01:00:44 and then just looking back at paragraph 38 of your statement
01:00:51 you go on in that paragraph after the part that we read to explain that the integrity condition in paragraph 10.3 of bs476 part 20. now that's the part
01:01:02 of bs476 part 20. now that's the part that requires this gap gauge test yes correct cannot be complied with until the intermediate closes the opening the gap gauge required by 10.3.2b could pass through the opening which is an
01:01:14 through the opening which is an automatic fail until the end tumescent closes
01:01:17 closes in other words any open state cavity barrier would be subject to an automatic failure at the start of the test accordingly testing to the principles of 476 part 20 or ad hoc testing to 476 part 20 is
01:01:30 or ad hoc testing to 476 part 20 is usually referred to in reports now can you help us i appreciate you
01:01:42 now can you help us i appreciate you were talking to uh warrington fire about this uh ad hoc type of testing did you ever check that approach with anybody else
01:01:53 anybody else in the industry
01:01:57 i can't particularly recollect any specific discussions did you ever or do you can you recollect
01:02:10 did you ever or do you can you recollect ever having any discussions with anybody within government or anybody who was responsible for approved document b about how satisfactory it would be
01:02:21 about how satisfactory it would be to test in this ad hoc way no
01:02:32 so does it follow that you were reliant on the advice you were getting from x over
01:02:39 over in testing in this way that's correct yes thank you and if we can look back now at mr
01:02:50 and if we can look back now at mr swales's witness statement paragraph 46 on page 12.
01:03:06 he tells us there in the first lines he says the demand for rain screen cavity barrier products slowly increased to the point that in 2005 2006 we initiated discussions with
01:03:18 2006 we initiated discussions with body code warrington fire x over to undertake
01:03:21 undertake product testing now were you personally involved in those discussions yes it was and he goes on he says um picking up in the third line it took
01:03:33 um picking up in the third line it took a lot of discussion with xover to undertake the test as they were nervous that they could safely permit the testing of an open assembly and then he goes on there was no
01:03:44 and then he goes on there was no precedent to this test and it was considered ad hoc and then you go on and we're going to look at some of these test reports in a moment um so
01:03:56 um so just going back we had a discussion about whether or not x-over were reluctant was the only reason they were nervous and reluctant about the health and safety aspects of performing this test
01:04:07 test or were they also reluctant because they were concerned that they might be opening the door to some kind of compliance test for open state cavity barriers that they
01:04:18 for open state cavity barriers that they didn't feel comfortable with no it was purely a health and safety requirement did they ever express any concerns about whether it was
01:04:31 any concerns about whether it was appropriate to be testing in this ad hoc way using principles of 476 part 20. it's common to test to use part 20 or en
01:04:45 it's common to test to use part 20 or en 1363 part 1 for a test that doesn't fall into one of the other prescribed test standards so it's common yes i understand that's your evidence but my question was did they
01:04:57 but my question was did they ever say this is x over did they ever express any concerns about whether it was appropriate to be testing in this ad hoc way using the principles of 476 part 20.
01:05:08 principles of 476 part 20. none at all so they were entirely comfortable to go ahead with this testing apart from the health and safety aspects that's correct
01:05:24 did anyone from x over ever express any concern that they didn't want to be seen to be endorsing the safety of open state cavity barriers in circumstances where there was no
01:05:35 in circumstances where there was no accepted test for such a product no
01:05:42 now in a moment we're going to come to look at a number of the test and assessment reports which were produced for these open state intimate horizontal cavity barriers by x over
01:05:55 horizontal cavity barriers by x over uh and later by some others but before we do that i want to put a number of propositions to you to see what we can agree at this stage can we agree this that prior to siderise manufacturing and
01:06:07 that prior to siderise manufacturing and supplying
01:06:09 supplying open state horizontal cavity barriers for use on grenfell tower those products had only ever been tested for insulation and integrity between two concrete lintels or concrete
01:06:20 between two concrete lintels or concrete blocks
01:06:23 we are looking at here
01:06:28 testing an element of material when you're dealing with fire resistance tests to get a fire resistance level of any form of passive fire protection
01:06:39 passive fire protection the general principles are tested between two elements of concrete because the results are only applicable for that
01:06:47 for that barrier in isolation it is then for further fire engineering for fire engineers to take test results of all the construction elements on a build up so
01:06:59 elements on a build up so any walls flows facades etc etc to make their judgment for the building because
01:07:07 because every manufacturer should have the fire resistance or reaction to fire properties of their products they are selling yes thank you is the answer to my question yes that
01:07:19 is the answer to my question yes that prior to
01:07:20 prior to siderise manufacturing and supplying open state horizontal cavity barriers for use on grenfell tower those products had only ever been tested for insulation and integrity between two concrete
01:07:31 and integrity between two concrete blocks
01:07:33 blocks as per the standard yes thank you and it follows from that again can we agree this that prior to supplying the horizontal open state cavity barriers for the grenfell project
01:07:44 for the grenfell project those projects those products had never been tested for insulation and integrity in a rain screen system where the outer cladding was acm aluminium composite material there is
01:07:56 aluminium composite material there is no available test standard in which to test what you have just described other than an 8414 test that does not test the performance of the cavity barrier
01:08:06 barrier test the performance of the system i understand that's your answer but again it's the is a simple answer yes that prior to supplying the horizontal open state cavity barriers for the grenfell
01:08:17 state cavity barriers for the grenfell project
01:08:18 project those products had never been tested for insulation and integrity in a rain screen system where the outer cladding was acm
01:08:27 that is correct but then there are no available test standards as you've described there to be able to test for fire resistance yes i understand and can we also agree
01:08:39 yes i understand and can we also agree this
01:08:40 this that prior to being manufactured and supplied at grenfell tower neither the horizontal nor the vertical cavity barriers had been tested in void sizes as large as those for
01:08:51 in void sizes as large as those for which they were used at grenfell tower can we agree that yes
01:08:58 and extended application assessments and tests for those larger void sizes were only carried out after the grenfell fire yes thank you now we're going to look at um
01:09:10 thank you now we're going to look at um four x over reports from um 2007 2009 2010 and 2011 to see what testing and assessments were in fact done at x over
01:09:22 in fact done at x over or warrington fire as they then were during that period so this is 2007 to 2011. if we can go to the first of those reports if we can turn up
01:09:35 of those reports if we can turn up sil50290
01:09:46 so this we can see is uh the first test report
01:09:50 report it's dated the first of february 2007. we can see that on the bottom right hand side
01:09:57 side and then if we go back to the top we can see that the title is fire resistance test utilize utilizing the general principles of bs 476 part
01:10:07 476 part 20 1987 on two specimens of floor mounted and two specimens of wall mounted
01:10:13 mounted cavity barriers and then if we turn to page seven
01:10:20 of this report we can see who was present
01:10:24 present and we can see in the middle of that page under instruction to test it says the test was conducted on the 3rd of october 2006 at the request of siderise and then below that it tells us
01:10:36 siderise and then below that it tells us that the test was witnessed by mr seymour and mr s swales so you were present at these tests yes yes and if we can turn back to page
01:10:47 yes and if we can turn back to page three
01:10:49 three and there's a section summary of the tested specimens
01:10:57 here it's explaining what was being tested
01:11:02 tested uh in in these tests if we look at the fourth paragraph down it tells us that specimens c and d reference lambeth cwrs
01:11:13 and d reference lambeth cwrs comprised a mineral fiber-based insulation with polyethylene fiber reinforced aluminium four facings and had overall dimensions of two to five millimeters wide thousand
01:11:24 five millimeters wide thousand millimeters long and 75 millimeters thick
01:11:27 thick and then it said specimen c complete with the graphite based intumescent strip
01:11:32 strip retained to one edge of the primary seal by folded returns of support brackets that penetrated the full width of the specimen and specimen d complete with a palasol-based intumescent sheet
01:11:43 intumescent sheet retained to one edge of the primary seal so in this description it's right isn't it that it was specimen c and d that were the open state cavity barriers
01:11:53 barriers with intermediate strips yes yes that's correct
01:11:58 correct and that's in contrast to specimens a and b just to note above that in the paragraph immediately above they were um directly bonded to the damp
01:12:09 they were um directly bonded to the damp proof
01:12:10 proof course and friction fitted yes yes
01:12:15 and we can see i i read out the dimensions of the intumescent cavity barriers in that fourth paragraph two two two five meters wide thousand
01:12:26 two two five meters wide thousand millimeters long 75 millimeters thick
01:12:30 and we can see in paragraph two of of that section looking back up um it says the sections of wall and floor were formed from precast
01:12:42 floor were formed from precast reinforced aerated concrete lintels and had overall dimensions of and then it gives the dimensions so this is telling us that the cavity barriers were tested in wall and floor
01:12:54 barriers were tested in wall and floor sections
01:12:55 sections which were formed of precast reinforced aerated concrete lintels that's correct isn't it yes it is and those had apertures or gaps of um
01:13:07 apertures or gaps of um 250 millimeters is that right yes yeah so effectively you've got concrete with rectangular gaps in them that you're testing these barriers in yes
01:13:19 testing these barriers in yes that's correct
01:13:23 and if we look at page four of the table sorry page four of this document we can see a results table we could blow that up and we can see
01:13:35 we could blow that up and we can see that for specimens c and d for integrity and insulation they have naught minutes and not minutes because
01:13:42 because they have failed both the integrity and the insulation requirements yes you if you fail the integrity requirement of any test even today you automatically
01:13:54 any test even today you automatically fail the installation criteria i understand um and it tells us there's two asterisks uh for each of those naught minutes and if we read down two paragraphs below it says that due to
01:14:07 two paragraphs below it says that due to the intended end use of specimen c and d both specimens were tested incorporating a 25 millimeter through gap along one edge at the start of the test as a result both specimens automatically failed the
01:14:19 both specimens automatically failed the integrity and insulation criteria of the test
01:14:23 test via penetration of a 25 millimeter gap gauge upon commencement of the test so you could put the rod through the 25 millimeter gap it's an automatic fail if you were applying
01:14:35 applying the 476 part 20 standard yes
01:14:40 yes
01:14:43 and um in the paragraph below that we can see it it reads uh it says this after six minutes of
01:14:54 uh it says this after six minutes of testing both specimens had fully sealed this gap
01:14:58 this gap and therefore if they were assessed against the integrity and insulation maximum temperature rise only performance criteria of bs 476 part 20 from this point
01:15:10 476 part 20 from this point then the results of 46 minutes integrity and 32 minutes insulation for specimen c would be achieved and 54 minutes for integrity and for insulation for specimen d
01:15:22 specimen d would have been achieved yes yes so we can see from that paragraph that it took
01:15:28 it took six minutes for both specimens to fully seal the gap yes fully seal it that's a death fully sealed to this full depth of the 75 millimeters
01:15:40 depth of the 75 millimeters yes so actually activate the inch message activate um like i said previously between 125 130 degrees i see so you would have activation at
01:15:52 i see so you would have activation at the bottom edge and then that would seal the furnace and then over a period of warming then you would get the full depth of the 75 millimeter thickness
01:16:03 depth of the 75 millimeter thickness develop yes i understand so for the full for the full width of that barrier to yes to to seal against the concrete face that took six minutes yes yes
01:16:16 that took six minutes yes yes and is it right that only the maximum temperature rise requirements of bs476 part 20 were used in this ad hoc testing yes it was
01:16:28 and we can see what the performance was that they
01:16:31 that they achieved and then if we can look at page 28 of the report we can see there's some limitations mr chairman if i can just cover these
01:16:42 mr chairman if i can just cover these limitations in this report uh perhaps then we could break that's right
01:16:48 right and so at page 28 we can see at the bottom
01:16:53 bottom it sets out ongoing limitations and we can see at paragraph one it states the results relate only to the behavior of the specimens of the element of construction under the particular conditions of tests
01:17:05 under the particular conditions of tests they are not intended to be the sole criteria for assessing the potential fire performance of the element in use nor do they reflect the actual behavior in fires and then we can see in the next
01:17:16 and then we can see in the next paragraph it says the results may not be applicable to situations where the joint widths
01:17:21 widths orientations and supporting construction vary from those tested and then in the third paragraph it says as no movement was induced into the specimens during the test there can be no evaluation of the
01:17:33 there can be no evaluation of the performance of the seals where movement is included in a building under actual fire conditions so can you just help us what did you understand that last limitation
01:17:44 understand that last limitation to me it's a standard clause it's standard clause in fire tests even now um you're testing to get the performance of the
01:17:56 testing to get the performance of the element
01:17:57 element in isolation um it needs further um assessing as it says there uh the five movements of all the elements put together
01:18:10 of all the elements put together yeah so you have the five performance if we take green screen for example you would have the fire performance of the supporting ball whether it be concrete or sfs you'd have
01:18:21 whether it be concrete or sfs you'd have the five performance of the insulation in the cavity you'd have the fire performance of the cavity barriers and you'd have the fire performance of the rain screen panel and then it's for
01:18:31 for the overall project fire engineer or consultant to assess all those products brought together
01:18:42 all those products brought together because you can't test all of them together
01:18:45 together on a fire resistance test only through an 841
01:18:49 an 841 right i see and then just to complete what we can see in this um report for our purposes if we go to page 29 the next page at the top of the page
01:19:01 the page under review it makes clear that this report covers a test which was conducted to a procedure which is not the subject of any british standard specification but it
01:19:11 but it utilized the general principles of fire resistance testing in 476 part 20 and it also refers there and you mentioned this standard earlier the european equivalent bsen 1366 actually that's part four on
01:19:25 bsen 1366 actually that's part four on linear joint seals isn't it um and
01:19:32 um and is it right that in this test you use the thermocouple locations from the bs en 1366 part four for the linear joint seals we use the
01:19:43 for the linear joint seals we use the thermocouple locations on top from that standard
01:19:47 standard and the heating from bs476 part 20 and then you adapted the procedures from the two different standards for this test
01:19:56 test we didn't adapt any of the procedures because we're in we do not run the test warrant and fire run the test we only witness in terms of thermocouples attached
01:20:07 thermocouples attached to the product the thermocouples for en attached to the product and a copper disk with
01:20:15 disk with wires attached and a non-combustible pad over 30 millimeters square they are the same
01:20:22 the same or similar to the s476 so really there isn't any difference between the two measuring thermocouples i appreciate that's your evidence but is it right that you affected the u well
01:20:35 is it right that you affected the u well warrington fire used thermocouple locations from that
01:20:39 that 136 part 4 standard and the heating requirements from 476 part 20. yes yes thank you and then we can note as the final point that at the end of
01:20:50 as the final point that at the end of that paragraph it says it's recommended that the report be referred back to the test laboratory after a period of two years to ensure the methodology adopted and the results remain valid yes yes
01:21:01 yes thank you
01:21:05 mr chairman um that's a good moment i think for a break because i'm about to move on to a another test report yes all right well thank you i said we'd have a break um
01:21:17 thank you i said we'd have a break um roughly the middle of the morning mr mort we'll take it now um it'll come back at um 20 to 12 please and
01:21:28 um 20 to 12 please and um i have to ask you on this occasion and indeed any other occasions that when we have breaks not to talk to anyone about your evidence please or anything to do with it
01:21:38 it while you're away from the room all right yeah understood good thank you very much so we'll see you at 2012 then thank you thank you
01:39:31 welcome back everyone we're now ready to go back to mr bought to continue his evidence are you there mr moore can you see me and hear me yes i can good thank you very much ready to carry
01:39:42 good thank you very much ready to carry on yes i am good thank you very much indeed yes was strange when you're ready yes thank you yes mr mort um so we were just looking at the 2007 test report from warrington fire before
01:39:54 test report from warrington fire before we broke off and we looked at a number of the ongoing limitations that warrington fire had spelt out at the end of that report can you just help us with this to what extent did uh warrington fight
01:40:06 extent did uh warrington fight sorry did cider eyes take on board those limitations uh that was spelt out in that test um as with all fire tests we take on board
01:40:17 as with all fire tests we take on board the limitations of the test yes and we're going to come to the marketing uh literature that cider eyes produced later to what extent
01:40:26 extent were those limitations discussed when the marketing literature was being drafted
01:40:32 drafted um i only technically revealed but yeah i wasn't involved in the tour after the literature i see so um you don't recall any
01:40:43 i see so um you don't recall any discussions at that stage about the limitations that were clearly spelt out in these reports so let's go to the second x over warrington report that we have
01:40:55 warrington report that we have this is from january 2009 if we go to sil
01:41:02 50223
01:41:18 yes thank you so we can see from the title
01:41:21 title that this is a report that considers the fire resistance performance of ciderised lamitham
01:41:27 lamitham cwrs where we see cwrs is that curtin walling rain screen that's correct yeah cavity barrier is complete with techno fire and then at the number
01:41:38 techno fire and then at the number intumescent and we can see that the report is dated 30th of january 2009 from the bottom right
01:41:47 right and we can see it's described as an assessment report now were you involved in the obtaining of this report
01:41:56 um in january 2009 i was working for hilty
01:42:02 hilty i see but did you become aware of this report when you rejoined yes thank you and if we go to page three under the executive summary
01:42:14 summary there's a heading there uh right at the top objective it says this report considers the expected fire resistance performance of ciderised lamitham cwrs cavity barriers complete
01:42:25 lamitham cwrs cavity barriers complete with tecnifier intumescent similar to those tested under the reference wf number one seven seven one four with increased
01:42:33 increased depth to 90 millimeters now that uh report reference one five seven seven one four is the test report from february 2007 that we were just looking at just a moment ago that's right isn't
01:42:44 at just a moment ago that's right isn't it
01:42:45 it yes it is so this report was building on that work but now the depth of the intumescent was increased to 90 millimeters is that
01:42:54 correct upon reading what it would be yes it was increasing the depth of the seal from 75 to 90 billion does for a different fire rate yes so it's a deeper it's a deeper
01:43:07 yes so it's a deeper it's a deeper cavity barrier and a deeper intumescent yes
01:43:11 yes no the intermediate would be the same oh i see it's just for a deeper cavity barrier for a thickness of the character barrier yeah i see
01:43:26 and um can you help us to why it was i appreciate you weren't there but were you ever told why it was that cider eyes commissioned this assessment report
01:43:36 um it would only be for um requests for the market for a 60-minute
01:43:43 60-minute installation integrity product right i see
01:43:46 see and is it right that um for this report there weren't further tests carried out this was just an analysis of whether the intumescent should be capable of providing up to 60
01:43:57 should be capable of providing up to 60 minutes integrity and insulation is that right
01:44:00 right yes and if we turn to page five under the heading proposals
01:44:11 we can see effectively the proposition that's being tested and assessed in this in this report
01:44:17 report it is proposed that those cavity barriers complete with technifier intumescent similar to those previously tested under the previous test but increased in depth and 90 millimeters should provide up to 60
01:44:29 millimeters should provide up to 60 minutes integrity and insulation performance and then note these words when
01:44:33 when installed between concrete floor slab edges and concrete masonry walls if tested using the general principles of bs 476 part 20 1987
01:44:44 1987 yes yes so again um with this assessment report it's premised on the basis that the product was held between two concrete slabs yes
01:44:55 was held between two concrete slabs yes for testing yes yeah and if we turn to page seven we can see the reports conclusions
01:45:04 and it the basic conclusion was that should the recommendations given in this report be followed it can be concluded that those cavity barriers complete with the technifier intumescent
01:45:15 complete with the technifier intumescent should be capable of providing up to 60 minutes
01:45:17 minutes integrity and insulation performance if subjected
01:45:21 subjected to a test utilizing the general principles of bs 476 part 20 and again the little asterisks we can see
01:45:31 see caveats this and and makes clear that it's after closure of the 25 millimeter wide aired gap has occurred and in brackets it says after approximately four minutes yes
01:45:42 yes so the report is not assessing integrity or insulation performance prior to the 25 millimeter gap being closed no
01:45:54 25 millimeter gap being closed no no and again the report contains a caveat
01:46:01 if we go um to the very last sentence on page seven under validity it says the appraisal is only valid provided that no
01:46:13 appraisal is only valid provided that no other modifications are made to the tested construction other than those described in this report so that's an assessment report that's obtained in 2009 let's move now to another test report
01:46:26 let's move now to another test report this is sil 50224
01:46:34 and we can see from the title there on the right hand side this is fire resistance test utilizing the general principles of bs 476 part 20 on five specimens of floor-mounted linear
01:46:48 five specimens of floor-mounted linear gap seals and we can see it's dated the 26th of august 2010 and so it would appear that cideris had commissioned further testing
01:47:00 commissioned further testing to the principles of bs 476 part 20 which led to this report being produced is that right that's right and if we look at page two of the report
01:47:13 under test results
01:47:19 we can see if we that's great yes if we zoom in there we can see that uh five
01:47:25 five samples were tested um specimen e at the top there we can see that that
01:47:33 that that uh was installed into the cavity on three brackets reference prototype rs leaving an air gap of nominally 50 millimeters do you see that there yes and then um specimens f
01:47:46 yes and then um specimens f g h and i are all described below that and they had an air gap of normally 25 millimeters yes yes so you're testing the barriers
01:47:57 yes yes so you're testing the barriers with different widths of air gap is that correct that's correct
01:48:04 correct um turning just to page 12 we can see at the bottom of page 12
01:48:12 at item 6 again the apparatus used in this test
01:48:16 this test included concrete lintels autocrate aerated concrete yes yes and then if we turn to page 23 we can
01:48:28 and then if we turn to page 23 we can see
01:48:28 see a table of results
01:48:35 so uh here we can see that all the specimens when they've been tested to bs 476 part 20 have got naught minutes integrity and
01:48:46 have got naught minutes integrity and naught minutes insulation and there's an asterix and we can see
01:48:54 below in the in the paragraph below the table
01:49:00 table in the first paragraph if you could just go down the page a little thank you it says there due to the intended use of specimens e to i the specimens were tested incorporating a through gap along one
01:49:12 incorporating a through gap along one edge of between 25 millimeters to 50 millimeters at the start of the test as a result the specimens automatically failed the integrity and insulation criteria of the test fire penetration of a 25
01:49:23 the test fire penetration of a 25 millimeter gap gauge upon commencement of the test so exactly the same as last time yes yes and then if we look at the final the paragraph below that
01:49:36 the paragraph below that it states this it says between two and three minutes specimen g h and i sealed the gaps and therefore if they were assessed against the integrity and insulation
01:49:47 integrity and insulation maximum temperature rise only performance criteria of bs 476 part 20 from this point then the results are and we can see that the results are 61 minutes integrity
01:49:59 the results are 61 minutes integrity and 23 minutes insulation for specimen g 61 minutes integrity and 20 minutes insulation for specimen h and 61 minutes integrity and 27 minutes
01:50:10 and 61 minutes integrity and 27 minutes insulation specimen i respectively would have been reported
01:50:15 reported so just to summarize and is this fair it in these tests these samples have done
01:50:21 done quite well in terms of integrity they've all got over 61 minutes but they've performed worse in terms of insulation only 23 minutes 20 minutes and 27
01:50:32 only 23 minutes 20 minutes and 27 minutes
01:50:33 minutes respectively can you see that yes and is that a fair summary the summary i've just given yes
01:50:42 and then it tells us right at the end of that paragraph last sentence specimens e and f failed to completely seal the gaps so in respect of specimen e that was
01:50:54 so in respect of specimen e that was with the 50 millimeter gap the intermediate did not expand enough to fill that gap is that right that's correct these are um [Music]
01:51:04 [Music] purely r d product development testing we're trying out new intermediate technology to improve the product that's been supplied to the market
01:51:14 market that's the purpose of these tests right i see
01:51:18 i see so what was new in these tests compared with the ones that you did in 2007. a new type of intermediate from a new intermediate to player right i see so it's um
01:51:31 right i see so it's um it's product development yes i i understand and then if we go over to page 24 of this test we can see that exactly the same limitations and
01:51:42 that exactly the same limitations and and disclaimer are placed uh here by warrington fire as before
01:51:48 before the results relate only to the behavior of the specimens of the element of construction and not intended to be the sole criteria for assessing the potential fire performance and then the results may not be
01:51:59 and then the results may not be applicable to the situations where the joint widths orientations and supporting construction vary from those tested and then it's making clear in that final paragraph under limitations that there was no
01:52:09 was no movement um and therefore it can't be evaluating the performance where movement is induced in a building under actual fire conditions yes yes those are standard clauses
01:52:22 yes those are standard clauses in all test reports yes i understand they're standard causes but they're pretty important clauses are aren't they nonetheless their standard clauses in the test reports you were testing
01:52:34 reports you were testing that single element that single item the it needs to be further assessed as i said previously by a project fire engineer who takes the fire resistance properties
01:52:47 who takes the fire resistance properties and fire reaction properties of all the elements being used in the construction to come up with the correct product yes can we agree that though that they're
01:52:58 that they're important limitations yes yeah and then um in the fourth report uh if we go to this now this is from september 2011
01:53:10 september 2011 um if we look at sil50211
01:53:19 and under the title we can see on the top right hand side the title is the fire resistance performance of lamapham screen fire barriers and we can see below that that this is an assessment report again
01:53:33 and we can see it's dated the 20th of september
01:53:37 september 2011. now again have you seen this report before and are you familiar with it yes were you involved in commissioning this report yes
01:53:48 report yes and again it's an assessment report isn't it not new testing but an analysis and extrapolation based on
01:53:56 on um evidence presented to x over yes and if we go to page three next to
01:54:06 objective what what it's saying in as the objective for this assessment report is that it considers the expected fire resistance performance of lamaphone rain screen fire barriers
01:54:18 rain screen fire barriers similar to those tested under the references and those those are the two test reports the first from 2007 and the second from 2010 that we've just been looking at yes
01:54:29 2010 that we've just been looking at yes yes
01:54:33 and on page four we can see the assumptions that this report is based on
01:54:45 this report is based on and next to supporting construction it says it is assumed that the assemblies that the cavity fire barriers will be fitted to
01:54:51 fitted to elements of construction that have at least 60 minutes fire resistance performance in accordance with bs 476 part 21 and 22.
01:55:00 22. so there it's making an assumption that the assemblies that they're going to be fitted to will have at least 60 minutes fire resistance performance yes yes and next to installation
01:55:14 yes and next to installation two down from that it says it's assumed that the barriers will be installed by competent installers in a professional manner
01:55:22 manner and then it says the use of third-party certified installers is recommended do you see that yes and it it also says it's also assumed
01:55:34 and it it also says it's also assumed that the gap between the end of the barrier and the element of construction is no greater than 25 millimeters yes yes and then next to rain screen below that it says this this report does
01:55:46 below that it says this this report does not consider the fire resistance performance of the rain screen element or whether fire spread may occur as a consequence of collapse or failure of the rain screen the approving authority or regulator
01:55:58 the approving authority or regulator should decide whether it is necessary for the rain screen to be quotes fire rated whether it is of an appropriate construction and whether separate test or assessment evidence
01:56:09 separate test or assessment evidence is necessary now um were you aware of that caveat at the time in this report yes and
01:56:22 yes and if we can turn to page seven of this document in the top paragraph
01:56:30 we can see it says it should be noted that due to the performance criteria of the standard the opening included at the start of the test must result in integrity and insulation
01:56:41 must result in integrity and insulation failure
01:56:42 failure irrespective of how quickly the gap was closed and the approving authority or regulator
01:56:47 regulator should therefore consider the acceptability of this situation now we've seen two references there to the approving authority or regulator in this test assessment who did you
01:57:00 in this test assessment who did you understand to be the approving authority or regulator in this context on a project where product is supplied they can be a
01:57:12 they can be a approval by the project uh fire engineer could be approval by local building control could be approval by other consultants
01:57:23 could be approval by other consultants it's they they're responsible for assessing every element so you may have if you had five different manufacturers of five different components
01:57:34 different components it's their responsibility to assess all five components to ensure that it meets with the fire strategy
01:57:41 strategy yes was it sliderizer's practice to bring these caveats to the attention of fire engineer or building control officers on projects that it was involved with
01:57:52 involved with we have yes
01:57:56 when you say we have does that mean it was your practice to do that as a matter of course that you would do whatever whenever we were in discussions with a fire engineer i think that
01:58:08 with a fire engineer i think that it's a case of this is the product test information you need to satisfy yourselves but it's suitable for the construction
01:58:19 but it's suitable for the construction on site because we're not in control of what is being installed into so does that mean you do routinely tell building control that the in integrity and insulation
01:58:32 that the in integrity and insulation failure would occur at the beginning of the test and that the test data only relates to what happens later they would have seen the test reports
01:58:42 when you say they would be in the test we share test reports to projects on a regular basis right i see do you share test reports routinely on all projects yes when asked when asked when requested
01:58:55 yes when asked when asked when requested our information um particularly since grenfell is readily available for download of our website and you say our information particularly
01:59:06 and you say our information particularly since grenfell is readily available for download off the website does it follow that some information wouldn't have been readily available prior to grammar all information was readily available we were open
01:59:17 readily available we were open in sharing our test evidence with any relevant body would ask for the test evidence quite often under confidentiality agreements
01:59:30 confidentiality agreements yes i see um and then if we can go back to the report we were just looking at um in the next paragraph down from where i was reading on page seven
01:59:43 i was reading on page seven says this despite the effectiveness of the intumescent in this test the insulation performance was worse than of specimen d in the test referenced and then it's giving a reference to the february 07 report
01:59:56 reference to the february 07 report which achieved 54 minutes so it's saying the insulation performance was worse than that of specimen d then it goes on it says since the stonewall insulation is the same and the
02:00:08 stonewall insulation is the same and the gap was closed more quickly in the test reference and then they're referring to the 2010 test the earlier insulation failure must be due to another difference the most likely cause being the splitting
02:00:20 likely cause being the splitting of the edge of the barrier by the pressure exerted by the intermediate strip
02:00:26 strip and then it goes on the use of a foil end cap
02:00:29 end cap in the test referenced and then it refers to the 2007 test will have prevented or reduced this effect and therefore the inclusion of this detail with the proposed barrier would be
02:00:41 with the proposed barrier would be expected to result in an insulation performance of at least 30 minutes in addition to the 60 minutes integrity performance already discussed now can you help us
02:00:53 already discussed now can you help us what is a a is it a foil end cap or a fell
02:00:57 fell cap um like i said the this test was that
02:01:01 that the test was a product development test and when we manufactured these barriers for this product development
02:01:12 barriers for this product development test
02:01:14 test where you have a foil face on the top of the barrier and the foil face on the bottom the barrier in the previous test we had linked the two faces with foil tape over the end of the product to
02:01:26 foil tape over the end of the product to which the intumescent was applied on this rnd test we didn't use the same foil end closure
02:01:37 the same foil end closure to the seal so we only had the foil on the top
02:01:40 the top and the bottom of the product what that resulted in is the intumescent when it expands produces hot gases warm gases and those gases because um stonewall
02:01:54 and those gases because um stonewall can allow for gas to penetrate into it without any barrier that's what happened and we've proven on multiple occasions and we've actually had competitors copy our
02:02:06 had competitors copy our barriers where you introduce a foil cap on the end to stop the intumescent effect in the insulation performance i see so does that mean that you now have
02:02:17 have is it a foil end cap routinely provided as part of the barriers yeah if you when if you carried on through that report you were showing it's got a drawing in there for showing how the product was
02:02:28 how the product was made up right i see yeah and um if we go back to those conclusions that we were just looking at
02:02:43 at the end of that page it says should the recommendations given in this report be followed it can be concluded that lama firm rain screen fire barriers as described in this report should be capable of providing 60
02:02:54 should be capable of providing 60 minutes integrity and 30 minutes insulation performance after closure of the ventilation gap has occurred it's subjected to the test using general principles of 476 part 20.
02:03:06 using general principles of 476 part 20. now
02:03:10 did cydia eyes agree with that conclusion that the cavity barrier should be capable of achieving 60 minutes integrity and 30 minutes insulation performance yes and it's worth noting that it's
02:03:23 yes and it's worth noting that it's double the performance of the requirement for a cavity barrier as described in the proof documentary yes can we just look at um i want to put two pages
02:03:32 two pages on the screen side by side from the test reports 2007 and 2010 if we could pull up the 2007 test report this is page four of sil five zeros two
02:03:45 this is page four of sil five zeros two nine
02:03:54 zero yeah so we can have that and then on the other side of the page if we can have the 2010 test report at page 3 sil50224
02:04:05 at page 3 sil50224 page 3.
02:04:16 yes and it's the last paragraph on both of those pages that i'm interested in so if we look first at the 2007 report on the left-hand side we can see at the bottom paragraph of the page
02:04:29 bottom paragraph of the page the report set out that after six minutes of testing we can see that um specimen c has achieved 46 minutes integrity and 32 minutes insulation
02:04:40 integrity and 32 minutes insulation and then it's got 54 minutes integrity and insulation so 54 for both is specimen d
02:04:50 yes yes and then if we look at the on the right hand side in the 2010 test report in that bottom paragraph we can see that um specimen g this is
02:05:02 we can see that um specimen g this is about halfway down um where it starts saying then results of 61 minutes integrity and 23 minutes insulation that's specimen g 61 minutes integrity
02:05:14 that's specimen g 61 minutes integrity and 20 minutes insulation specimen h and 61 minutes integrity and 27 minutes
02:05:21 minutes insulation for specimen i so those are the figures now we can see that the insulate for insulation the results were much better
02:05:32 insulation the results were much better in the first test and for integrity the results were much better in the second test yes yes and so is it right that in its assessment report from 2011
02:05:43 assessment report from 2011 that we've just been looking at x over combined the favorable integrity results from the 2010 test report the 61 minutes with the favorable insulation results from the 2007 test
02:05:56 insulation results from the 2007 test report
02:05:57 report 32 and 54 minutes to conclude that cydar eyes open
02:06:01 eyes open state cavity barriers would achieve the 60 30
02:06:04 60 30 for integrity and insulation yes yes as we
02:06:08 we previously discussed the test on the right hand side did not have the foil cap test on the left and the foil cap that is the fundamental difference between the two
02:06:19 difference between the two also the test on the right was used in new higher performing um intumescent we were trialling
02:06:30 intumescent we were trialling but is it right that no specimen had actually achieved that result 60 30 for both criteria no single specimen had to achieve that that's correct
02:06:43 achieve that that's correct was this any concern to to sidearize that you hadn't got a single product that had got both 60 30 that you'd had to take
02:06:52 to take results from two different tests to to achieve that like i've said they were two
02:06:58 two totally different samples of tested we've proven after this that the performance is even better than this again these are r d
02:07:09 again these are r d tests this is this is learning this is how products are developed you you you test you learn you test you learn and you just don't stop learning you continually test and
02:07:20 learning you continually test and continually learn i understand but um so are you saying that you did retest the products to see if you could get a single specimen to achieve
02:07:31 single specimen to achieve 60 30. um at a latter date yes when was that later date i can't relax recollect from memory but we have extensive tests on
02:07:42 extensive tests on fire that being submitted to the inquiry was that before or after the grenfell fire
02:07:46 fire before right
02:07:52 but and what about before or after the product was supplied to grenfell we've tested continued we've still continued to test i see i want to take you
02:08:05 i see i want to take you now i'll ask you now some questions about testing to a standard known in the industry as tgd 19.
02:08:13 tgd 19. if we can start by looking at paragraph 45 49 of mr swales's witness statement this is
02:08:19 this is page 13 of his statement sil 50306
02:08:32 and i just want to look at what he says in the first few lines of that paragraph 49 he says the bs 476 part 20 and or bs en 1366 part 4 standards were not however
02:08:44 1366 part 4 standards were not however deemed adequate by the test houses for the testing of open state cavity barriers
02:08:48 barriers this was largely because the air gap requirements meant an automatic failure of the test
02:08:54 and just pausing there when he says uh we're not deemed adequate by the test houses
02:09:02 houses do you know which test houses he's talking about there um in the uk we have um three oh we did have three main uh test houses we had warranted fire bre
02:09:15 uh test houses we had warranted fire bre and chilton fire now we have two because children fire a part of the element group which are warrington do you know whether it was the view of
02:09:27 do you know whether it was the view of the bre and chilton fire as well as rex over that that comment has come from um at this time i was
02:09:40 um at this time i was sitting on asfb technical committee working groups the working groups are made up of laboratories consultants product manufacturers
02:09:51 consultants product manufacturers consultants um and and such like they would have been representation from the bre there they would have been representation from warrenton representation from ul although they
02:10:03 representation from ul although they don't have any laboratories in the uk and representation from children at the time
02:10:10 time right when you say representation from ul who are you talking about there uh universal laboratories american company they have a certification uh fire engineering division in the uk although they don't
02:10:21 division in the uk although they don't have any test facilities i see present so is it your understanding that all of the test houses didn't consider the british standards to be adequate for the testing of open state cavity barriers
02:10:32 of open state cavity barriers yes and then mr swales goes on to say if we pick it up three lines down from where we stopped he says accordingly in 2014 the
02:10:43 he says accordingly in 2014 the association for specialist fire protection asfp you've just mentioned developed and launched a new test regime namely technical guidance document tgd
02:10:54 technical guidance document tgd specifically for the testing of open state cavity barriers this is now known as the asfp guidance open state cavity barrier used
02:11:05 guidance open state cavity barrier used in external envelope or fabric of buildings utilizing the principles of en1363 part one tgd19
02:11:15 now can i take it that you're familiar with that technical guidance document tgd19
02:11:21 tgd19 yes we will go to it uh in a moment um and mr swales goes on to say uh if we look at paragraph 50 on that
02:11:33 uh if we look at paragraph 50 on that same page
02:11:34 same page at the bottom he says um side of eyes worked with the asfp
02:11:42 to develop tgd 19 and tested its cavity barriers to draft standard asf tg 3 n64
02:11:50 tg 3 n64 fourth draft february 2013 to the temperature and pressure conditions of bsen 136 part 1 2012 on the 15th of may 2013 and then he gives reference to an x over report
02:12:04 now um were you personally involved in developing tgg 19 as part of the technical working group for asap
02:12:14 for asap yes yeah along with 11 other members and i think um that standard that i just read out bsen 1363 part 1 2012 that's the european equivalent of
02:12:27 2012 that's the european equivalent of bs 476 part 20 setting out the general requirements for fire resistance tests yes it's a higher standard than the s476 bar 20.
02:12:36 20. i see you you if you have a product that is tested to bs 476
02:12:43 bs 476 you cannot assume you will pass a bsen 1360.
02:12:48 1360. test um if you've got a product that's tested to
02:12:51 tested to en 1366 or similar then it should pass the bs4 m6 due to how the furnace temperature is uh recorded and controlled
02:13:05 is uh recorded and controlled in bs476 it's a simple uh it's a simple bare wire um in en standards there is a thermocouple in there that is a
02:13:18 a thermocouple in there that is a hundred millimeter square steel plate with a 10 millimeter calcium silicate board
02:13:23 board and sandwiched between the steel plate and the calcium silicate board is the bare wire so the amount of energy needed
02:13:32 needed in the first phase of the start of an en test is 20 to 25 percent more than required in the bs 476 test right that's a considerable thermal
02:13:44 test right that's a considerable thermal shock increase over the s4 six i understand now um if we go to paragraph 39 of your witness statement this is on page 10 of your statement
02:13:58 this is on page 10 of your statement you explain there for us some of the difficulties in testing open state cavity barriers
02:14:08 and what you say in the beginning of that paragraph is you say difficulties in testing open state cavity bars is not limited to the uk european testing standards have also struggled as i set out below
02:14:20 struggled as i set out below and i wanted to look at what you say at subparagraph c if you look at that you say
02:14:29 in october 2008 the european organization for technical assessment the eeota
02:14:34 the eeota published a technical report tr 31 entitled fire resistance tests or cavity barriers
02:14:43 as i understand it tr 31 was written because there was no relevant standard for testing cavity barriers however that standard you say excludes open state cavity barriers it states that section one this method
02:14:55 it states that section one this method is not applicable to horizontal cavity barriers eg rain screen cladding because it is difficult if not impossible to model the correct thermal exposure and boundary conditions in a fire resistance type test such
02:15:08 in a fire resistance type test such tests should be considered as part of a facade's test
02:15:15 now um is that the view of siderise that it is
02:15:19 it is it would be difficult if not impossible to model the correct thermal exposure and boundary conditions that there is the
02:15:30 that there is the opinion of the auto committee that wrote the tr-31
02:15:35 the tr-31 members of the tr 31 committee were also members of the asfp were involved in writing tgd 19. the the difficulty being
02:15:48 the the difficulty being goes back to the fundamental principles of having an open gap on a furnace
02:15:55 furnace how would you measure the temperature above that gap in order to keep the pressure and the temperature in the furnace balanced to allow it to follow the time
02:16:08 balanced to allow it to follow the time temperature curve yeah that is the the issue in terms of success if you could do a part of facade tests
02:16:19 part of facade tests an en test to use in 1363 part one around up to around five minutes it gets up to close to 600 650 degrees
02:16:30 up to close to 600 650 degrees or then to half an hour it gets up to 850 degrees it's a logarithmic time temperature curve
02:16:39 curve on a full facade test 28414 the failure criterion at level two which is where they're it's measured at does not exceed
02:16:50 does not exceed 600 degrees so therefore 8414 test failure criteria at level two is less than what a furnace gets to in the first five minutes so therefore
02:17:01 in the first five minutes so therefore if you test a cavity barrier on a furnace condition the cavity barrier will not have any detrimental effect to a full scale test of a facade to eight four one for
02:17:15 of a facade to eight four one for i i follow that but um my question was whether
02:17:18 whether ciderise agreed with the the position of the eota as expressed in that paragraph that it would be um difficult if not
02:17:29 that it would be um difficult if not impossible to model the correct thermal exposure and boundary conditions in a fire resistance type test it's not just a sideways opinion it was the asfp opinion that you could
02:17:41 the asfp opinion that you could model and get the furnace balanced but i i think the short answer to my question is is yes that was cideriser's opinion yes
02:17:52 sarah's opinion as in we agree with the aorta statement or not all right well please tell me i i don't agree with you eyes agree with that opinion or not they didn't
02:18:04 or not they didn't no the next test is harder than a facade test to wait for one for just periods of temperature exposure
02:18:15 with a bit the bit of let's just go back to that bit of your statement
02:18:26 what's being said there uh if we get sorry back to the previous page bottom of the page
02:18:34 so you say in october 2008 the european organization for technical assessment published a technical report entitled and there's the report and then we go back over
02:18:45 as i understand it was written because there was no relevant standard for testing cavity barriers however it excludes open state and it states that section one this method is not
02:18:55 not applicable to horizontal cavity barriers eg rain screen clouding because it is difficult
02:18:59 difficult if not impossible to model the correct thermal exposure and boundary conditions in a fire resistance type test such tests should be considered as part of a facade's test so taking that in
02:19:11 of a facade's test so taking that in in stages did siderise agree that it was difficult if not impossible to model the correct thermal exposure and boundary conditions in a fire resistance type test
02:19:24 and why did cydar eyes take a different view
02:19:28 view this was the view of an european committee who were not aware of tests that will be undertaken in the uk in terms of
02:19:39 in terms of trying to develop products um once the insurmountant reacts and closes the gap
02:19:48 the gap then in effect that is a full seal then the full furnace conditions can be controlled i see so sidewise thought it would be possible
02:19:59 possible yes if what if you ignore the first few minutes of the test to model the correct thermal exposure and boundary conditions in a fire resistance test
02:20:10 conditions in a fire resistance test you don't ignore the the met all everything's recorded from time zero so it's not ignored because if it was ignored then they wouldn't be putting zero zero on
02:20:23 they wouldn't be putting zero zero on the insulation integrity on the test report it's we were trying to come with a way of
02:20:32 the asfp and like i said members of the asap actually were involved with tr 31 to introduce additional thermocouples
02:20:45 to introduce additional thermocouples that actually measured the temperature in the 25 millimeter open gap i see and that then assists
02:20:56 i see and that then assists the control of the furnace and run another test what about the part there such tests should be considered as part of a facade's test did cider eyes agree with that statement
02:21:10 did cider eyes agree with that statement um
02:21:13 um to an extent yes although the failure criterion or an eight four one four test is never the cavity barrier because the cavity barriers using eight four one
02:21:25 cavity barriers using eight four one four tests have been tested to a furnace condition which have temperatures that are higher than the failure criteria of an eight four one four test then the cavity barriers
02:21:38 majority all the time for uh function as a cavity barrier in all uh 841 for tests that fail it's a combination of either the panel is on
02:21:50 a combination of either the panel is on fire
02:21:51 fire or there's a fire within the panel or there's thermal installation and a panel fire the cavity barriers function to the point of the panel
02:22:02 point of the panel failure right yes i mean i think we can agree can we that an 8414 test is not set up to measure the performance of the cavity barrier is it
02:22:15 performance of the cavity barrier is it that's correct it's a system test it's a system test and the data that you get from an 8414 test
02:22:23 test is very different from the data that you get from a fire resistance test that's a reaction to fire test isn't it they're two totally different tests however you need cavity barriers in an
02:22:36 however you need cavity barriers in an eight four one foot test in order for an eight four one volt test to function
02:22:41 well even though they're not measured they need to be part of the test in order for the test to function yes i understand that but going back to what the european um committee
02:22:54 to what the european um committee or the european organization for technical assessment uh what did you understand them to mean when they said such tests should be considered as part of a facade test forget 8414 for a moment what did you
02:23:05 forget 8414 for a moment what did you understand them to mean by that
02:23:09 um that you can't just take a furnace test for a product you need a furnace test and possibly a full facade test although through en standards there are
02:23:22 although through en standards there are no facade tests yet they still aren't i understand that but i think you've just agreed that what they're saying is you can't just take a furnace test for a product you need the furnace test and
02:23:34 product you need the furnace test and possibly a full facade test yes but then the failure criteria of a facade test is nowhere near the level of performance
02:23:45 is nowhere near the level of performance of a furnace test so therefore a cavity barrier that passes a furnace test it can be safely assumed will not be detrimental to the performance of a full system test
02:23:56 performance of a full system test yes i i understand that if you think of them referring to a facade test as as being an eight four one four test it is that what you understood them to mean did you ever clarify that
02:24:08 did you ever clarify that i didn't clarify that right now um if we go to paragraph 40 of your witness statement um now you address tgd 19 this um new test
02:24:22 new guidance rather than a test on page 10 yes sorry new well new guidance and you say this therefore the above mentioned test standards do not address
02:24:33 mentioned test standards do not address the requirements for testing open state cavity barriers accordingly the asfp together with its technical committee of ucas laboratories certification engineers manufacturers
02:24:44 certification engineers manufacturers cen and bsi members authored a guidance document tgd 19 that specifically addressed small scale furnace testing of open state cavity barriers
02:24:55 barriers the usual method of undertaking a test in accordance with tgd 19 is again to undertake the test of the barrier by supporting it between two concrete elements until tgd 19 was
02:25:08 two concrete elements until tgd 19 was published there was no test directly applicable and appropriate to open state cavity barriers
02:25:15 barriers now in terms of that group that authorized tgd 19 you talk about the fact it included ucas laboratories certification engineers manufacturers etc
02:25:26 etc which manufacturers were part of that group
02:25:30 group um side rise hilti rockwell fire them fire stop it
02:25:41 promat
02:25:46 yes and and can you explain exactly what type of small-scale furnace testing was selected for open state cavity barriers um when we say small scale
02:25:58 um when we say small scale we are still talking a significant major test
02:26:02 test it's small scale compared to a 10 meter high
02:26:06 high eight four one four test rig um it's still
02:26:10 still a uh at least um one meter or one point two meter cube um gas furnace that gets up to temperatures of 850 degrees
02:26:23 gets up to temperatures of 850 degrees or 30 minutes a thousand and 1100 degrees over two hours
02:26:28 hours they're still even though it says small scale
02:26:31 scale um they're still major tests i see and and can you explain why that form of testing was considered appropriate by this group because it
02:26:46 gave clarification to the performance of the cafe barrier in isolation so if you've got manufacturers a b c d e we all everybody tests
02:26:57 all everybody tests the same principles on there and abcde you all get 30 minutes on that then it gives more clarity to the market
02:27:09 then it gives more clarity to the market as to the performance of those barriers because they're all following the same same standard same guidance yeah and you say in that part of your statement i just read it out that the usual method of undertaking a test in
02:27:21 usual method of undertaking a test in accordance with tgg 19 is again to undertake the test of the barrier by supporting it between two concrete elements yes yes you described that as the usual method how many
02:27:32 that as the usual method how many methods were there of undertaking a test in accordance with tgg19 when it came to the barriers supporting elements you had concrete concrete in there
02:27:45 you had concrete concrete in there and also you could erect a timber substrate protected with cement particle boards um which
02:27:56 cement particle boards um which the barrier would be fixed too but the intermediate would still exfoliate to concrete i see yeah did cider eyes uh ever test its cavity barriers to a test
02:28:09 test its cavity barriers to a test method which wasn't between two concrete elements not on the furnace no
02:28:15 no no now let's turn to another x over report now this time from july 2013 this is sil
02:28:24 50212
02:28:36 and we can see from the title on the right hand side that this is the heading is the fire resistance performance of four specimens of floor mounted open state cavity barriers
02:28:48 mounted open state cavity barriers tested utilizing the general principles of draft standard asfp tg3 n64 fourth draft 2013 now that was the draft standard
02:28:59 draft standard that was the precursor to tgd19 yes yes that's correct yeah and we can see from the bottom right hand side of this first page the date is the 23rd of july 2013.
02:29:12 23rd of july 2013. and if we can turn on to page six we can see next to the instruction to test
02:29:19 in the middle that you were one of the witnesses to this test you're listed there with mr carrick and mr spak yes yes
02:29:32 and um can you remember attending this test do you have a memory of it yes i do and if we turn to page two we can see the description of the test set up
02:29:45 and under the heading the third heading down in the blue summary of the tested specimen
02:29:54 we can see that from the second paragraph down that the section of the floor had overall dimensions of and it gives the dimensions and was made up of autoclaved
02:30:06 dimensions and was made up of autoclaved aerated concrete lintels arranged to provide three three hundred millimeter wide by one thousand two hundred millimeters long and one twenty five millimeter wide by
02:30:17 by 1 200 millimeter long apertures yes so again we've got rectangular apertures cut into concrete lintels yes yes um the the precedent
02:30:29 yes um the the precedent for testing between concrete to concrete elements
02:30:32 elements started a long time before i joined the industry
02:30:36 industry uh bs m6 part 20 was published in 1987. so from 1987 onwards
02:30:43 to isolate elements that you want to test
02:30:46 test you test it between concrete elements so the concrete so the weakness is your product not the concrete right um
02:30:57 the concrete right um but just to be clear here we've got three um
02:31:01 three um three 300 millimeter wide openings and one 25 millimeter opening is that right yes and then
02:31:10 if we turn briefly to your witness statement at paragraph 10 we'll come back to this in a moment sil 50298 page 3 you tell us at paragraph 10 what the two
02:31:22 you tell us at paragraph 10 what the two types of what the types of cavity barriers were that were supplied to grenfell tower and um we can see you've got reference there in the bullet points to
02:31:33 there in the bullet points to rh 25 g 90 30 264-325 um and then a slightly different barrier below now just to explain
02:31:44 below now just to explain how this um product is is named the rh at the beginning means rain screen horizontal yes yes and the last two bullet points it's rain
02:31:55 the last two bullet points it's rain screen vertical yes yes so rh or rv tells you whether it's horizontal or vertical the 25 for the horizontal that's the
02:32:06 the 25 for the horizontal that's the uh 25 millimeter air gap yes yes and then g stands for galvanized is that right correct and then you've got the minutes
02:32:19 and then you've got the minutes that it's rated to so for integrity and insulation 90 30 we can see at the top do you see that
02:32:26 that and then the final numbers at the end they represent the void size the overall void size that the barrier's been used in yes yes so you've supplied barriers at grenfell tower
02:32:38 grenfell tower the horizontal barriers for a void size of between two six four and three to five millimeters and also between three two six and four to five millimeters
02:32:49 to five millimeters yes yes yes and we're going to talk about void size a little bit later but it's worth noting those at the moment that they go up to 45.
02:33:00 that they go up to 45. now um then if we go back to the test report we were looking at sil 5021 page two
02:33:12 we can see in the fifth paragraph down sorry so it's actually the third paragraph down in that part of the page beginning specimens a to c
02:33:26 basically we get various dimensions of cavity barrier given in this section and specimen a
02:33:37 um they're they're all full face rock fire
02:33:40 fire fiber lamella rain screen cavity barrier and they get then they give the reference which had a nominal density of 75 kilograms per meter cubed and then overall
02:33:51 per meter cubed and then overall dimensions and then we get the dimensions of 275 millimeters wide by 120 millimeters long and 120 millimeter thick that specimen a 90 millimeter thick specimen b and 75
02:34:04 90 millimeter thick specimen b and 75 millimeters thick specimen c um
02:34:09 c um and um mr swales has confirmed paragraph 51 of his witness statement that the two types of horizontal cavity barrier that we used on grenfell tower were specimens a and c
02:34:21 were specimens a and c does that sound right oh yes yeah so it's a with it was millimeters thick and specimen c 75
02:34:32 millimeters thick and specimen c 75 millimeters thick now if we turn on to page 31 of the test report
02:34:42 i want to look at the section headed integrity first at the top of the page it says there it's required that the specimen retains its separating function without either causing ignition of a
02:34:54 without either causing ignition of a cotton pad when applied as specified in en1363 part 1
02:35:00 1 2012 or resulting in sustained flaming on the unexposed surface and then these requirements were satisfied for the periods shown below and then it says technical
02:35:12 shown below and then it says technical failure of the integrity of specimens a to d would deem to have occurred
02:35:18 occurred at the start of this test due to the open void required for such seal types however following expansion of the intumescent layer full closure of each cavity was deemed
02:35:29 full closure of each cavity was deemed to occur between one minute and four minutes 38 seconds now just on that can you help us with why
02:35:38 why the intumescent layer was deemed to have closed
02:35:42 closed the cavity at these time periods you would need to i would need to see the thermocouple
02:35:53 to see the thermocouple suspended them a couple of data for each of the cavities um which is appendix to this report in there
02:36:01 there in the asfpg19 um there is a requirement that whilst it's accepted
02:36:09 accepted that the thermocouples are suspended may peak over the 180 degrees in the first initial lighting of the furnace
02:36:18 furnace but they drop back very rapidly from the thermocouple data you'll be able to establish not only when the installation criteria is reestablished but when the integrity criteria is established
02:36:30 criteria is established because as soon as that drops below 180 degrees
02:36:33 degrees then the integrity is there i see so what you're saying is the test assumes that as soon as it drops below 180 degrees then it's assumed that the intumescent layer has sealed the
02:36:46 the intumescent layer has sealed the cavity
02:36:47 cavity yes and that was deemed to have occurred between
02:36:50 between one minute and four minutes 38 seconds in this testing yes yeah
02:37:00 and then looking at the two tables on this page so looking at this table for integrity first we can see that
02:37:08 that um so and we're concentrating on specimens a and c these are the barriers that we used at grenfell tower specimen a achieved 136 minutes integrity
02:37:21 and specimen c 116 minutes integrity and then if we look down
02:37:29 to the table below
02:37:33 which deals with insulation we can see that specimen a has achieved 81 minutes insulation and specimen c
02:37:44 and specimen c 57 minutes insulation is that right yes
02:37:50 and if we turn to page 32 under ongoing implications we see the limitations
02:37:58 section
02:38:03 and again we see very similar in fact identical limitations to those that we saw in the earlier worrying to fire
02:38:12 fire test reports yes yes so the results relate only to the behavior of the test specimens
02:38:18 specimens under construction in the conditions of this test they're not intended to be the sole criteria for assessing the potential fire performance of this element in use they do not nor do they reflect the actual behavior in fires
02:38:31 actual behavior in fires and they may not be applicable to situations where joint width steps orientation supporting construction may vary
02:38:37 vary and it also makes the point that there was no movement induced so it's not telling you about how they would perform where movement is induced in a building under actual fire conditions
02:38:49 and then if we go to page 34 we can see there's a heading on this test report
02:39:00 there's a heading on this test report headed field of direct application and it says that the the results of the fire test are directly applicable to similar constructions where one or more of the changes listed below
02:39:10 below are made a increase in the thickness of the cavity barrier decreasing the distances of fixing centers decreasing the width front to back of the air gap
02:39:21 the air gap and then it says d void sides can be interpolated between minimum and maximum voids
02:39:27 voids and then e if a single void size is tested the result is only applicable to that void size do you see that at e yes and again did you
02:39:39 yes and again did you note and understand those limitations of this test reporting at the time yes because that is a direct field of application applicable to that test report only
02:39:50 applicable to that test report only and did you make your colleagues in the sales and marketing team at siderise aware that the results of these tests were only applicable in those circumstances there would have been a way yes when you
02:40:03 there would have been a way yes when you say they would have been aware what makes you say that well the test reports would have been reviewed by the sideways team including all of those in the marketing
02:40:14 including all of those in the marketing team
02:40:15 team yes and then next to the heading so directly underneath that if we go back to that page under the heading supporting construction
02:40:26 it says the test results obtained with autoclaved aerated concrete standard supporting constructions apply to concrete block work and masonry separating elements of a thickness and density equal to or
02:40:37 thickness and density equal to or greater than that tested do you see that yes so it's um the test results test results are limited to concrete block work
02:40:49 are limited to concrete block work and masonry front and back yes for if you were to test that product on a furnace yes yes
02:41:00 and just to be absolutely clear this test did not extend to considering the use of open state cavity barriers in a rain screen system did it i where the wall in front of the barrier is not
02:41:12 the wall in front of the barrier is not concrete or block work but for example a metal or terracotta panel
02:41:18 panel no it does not because the test standard is to
02:41:22 is to uh confirm the performance of the cavity barrier in isolation from any other construction elements its responsibility of the fire engineer on the project to take the test data from all other products to come up with the overall
02:41:34 products to come up with the overall fire performance and that's applicable to any pacifier protection not just cavity barriers yes thank you now returning to mr
02:41:45 now returning to mr swales's witness statement uh paragraph 50
02:41:49 50 page 13 that's sil 50306 page 13.
02:42:02 so um when discussing this draft standard we looked at this part earlier uh he says that it was tested to the temperature and pressure conditions of bsen1363 part one can you just
02:42:15 of bsen1363 part one can you just explain to us precisely how that testing used the temperature and pressure conditions of that european standard okay um bs476 part 20
02:42:30 okay um bs476 part 20 and bsen 1363 part 1. both those documents utilize what they call the cellulosic
02:42:42 utilize what they call the cellulosic uh time temperature curve when you're dealing with fire testing there's three major time temperature curves there's a slow burn time temperature curve which max is out there around 650 degrees
02:42:54 there around 650 degrees then there's a cellulosic time temperature curve and then you have the hydrocarbon temperature curve which is extreme for oil refineries oil rigs et cetera
02:43:04 cetera so the cellulosic curve also is known as the iso a34 time temperature curve so both bs476 power 20
02:43:16 so both bs476 power 20 and en 1363 part 1 use iso 834 time temperature curve yeah it's a logarithmic equation um it can be looked up in the
02:43:27 equation um it can be looked up in the end of the standards but it's basically temperature is equal to
02:43:32 to a log of uh time plus um temperature rise and it plots out and
02:43:43 temperature rise and it plots out and controls the furnace in the graph in terms of pressure conditions
02:43:49 both 476 uh regimes in all guises for fire resistance tests and en 1363 part one you have to establish
02:44:00 establish a 20 pascals plus or minus three pascals 100 millimeters below the seal that is being tested now that gives you a positive pressure
02:44:13 now that gives you a positive pressure on the furnace i understand so i think what you're saying is you've used the time
02:44:18 time pressure curve from that european standard
02:44:23 standard in this test yes but but only once the seal has activated no the time temperature curve is used for time zero right
02:44:34 for time zero right i see as soon as the furnace is turned on
02:44:37 on it worked yes and then the pressure requirement the positive pressure on the furnace that you were explaining yeah is that used throughout or just for part of the
02:44:48 used throughout or just for part of the test no in en standards and in bs standards in the first five minutes of any test the laboratory has to establish
02:44:59 the laboratory has to establish temperature control to the curve within the green tolerances and pressure control with ingredient tolerances now in the first five minutes they have to
02:45:11 get 20 pascals plus or minus five then after the five minutes it drops to 20 pascal's plus or minus three so that is measured from time zero
02:45:22 so that is measured from time zero right i see so it's using the temperature curve requirements and the pressure standards from those from that that european standard yes yes and then mr swales goes on
02:45:34 yes and then mr swales goes on and he says um so he's explaining that that was a draft standard and we saw some testing to that just now and then he says this picking up in the
02:45:45 and then he says this picking up in the fourth line i confirm for the avoidance of doubt that although it is called the draft standard there are very few differences to the actual test to what was later termed tdd-19
02:45:57 to what was later termed tdd-19 the only significant difference is to the standard thermocouple arrangements now can you just explain what that means what were the differences in the final standard on thermocouple
02:46:10 in the final standard on thermocouple arrangements okay in the in the draft they were um suspended thermocouples above
02:46:19 above the air gap no nominally uh at center sale and at a third either side on the cafe barrier itself there would be
02:46:31 the cafe barrier itself there would be similar
02:46:32 similar thermocouples affixed to the top surface of that and where you've got a joint in the seal there'd be a thermocouple affixed adjacent to the joint to measure the performance of the joint in the very early draft from memory
02:46:45 in the very early draft from memory we didn't have any further thermocouples on the insulation above the cavity barrier however on our test
02:46:54 test and it went forward with the final draft of tgg19
02:46:58 of tgg19 where you're using thermal insulation above and below a cavity barrier the thermal insulation directly above the cavity bear also had thermocouples affixed to it i think the measure the performance and
02:47:10 i think the measure the performance and that so that if at any point the cavity barrier started to break down where butted the concrete on the back wall
02:47:21 concrete on the back wall so not where the intumescent is on the opposite end of the sail there could be a potential route for fire to pass up the back of it so by having the thermocouple uh on the insulation you could measure that
02:47:34 insulation you could measure that also i see so i think you're saying the final test standard had an additional location
02:47:40 location for thermal couples you'd already got thermocouple in the gap and you've explained what happens about how you treat the temperature that that thermocouple detects
02:47:51 thermocouple detects you've got a thermocouple on top of the barrier on the unexposed side and then the new tech the final version of the test also included a thermocouple in the insulation itself yeah it in
02:48:03 in the insulation itself yeah it in reality you would have somewhere just on the specimen itself uh so we took an insulation character by air gap around 10 thermocouples right
02:48:15 air gap around 10 thermocouples right you would also have thermocouples on the concrete measure the performance of the concrete
02:48:20 concrete as well now can we turn to another test report this is a chilton international bm trader report this is it sl50288
02:48:32 bm trader report this is it sl50288 this is from the 24th of april 2014.
02:48:49 so we can see from the top in the green box this is written by chilton is the national fire limited it's dated we can see from the test date
02:49:00 it's dated we can see from the test date towards the bottom of that uh writing that it's the 24th of april 2014 and it's called a fire resistance test performed
02:49:09 performed three horizontal ventilated cavity fire barrier seals within a concrete supporting construction and we can see that the test
02:49:20 and we can see that the test below that it says test conducted in accordance with the test standard asf open state cavity barrier used in the external envelope or fabric of buildings
02:49:30 buildings and utilizing the principles of bsen 1363 part 1 2012. so
02:49:39 2012. so just for clarity uh was that the tdd-19 test
02:49:43 test yes it was yeah and then if we turn to page four
02:49:48 page four we can see under the description in section
02:49:51 section three yes at the bottom there description of supporting construction it says there the supporting construction comprised 150 millimeter thick lightweight aerated reinforced
02:50:02 thick lightweight aerated reinforced slabs
02:50:03 slabs built on top of a uh 1 500 millimeter squared furnace so and then it says the exposed area of the supporting construction included
02:50:15 construction included three apertures 300 millimeter wide by 600 millimeter deep by 1 300 millimeters long exposed to the fire to accept the cavity fire barrier seals so again
02:50:29 seals so again a familiar construction in terms of the test apparatus yes yes it's the standard construction offered
02:50:36 offered by all test labs right across the world yes and the barriers are being tested between aerated reinforced concrete slabs yes
02:50:45 slabs yes yes and they were constructed to provide three
02:50:49 three 300 millimeter wide voids into which the barriers were placed yes and then if we go to page five under section 4.1
02:51:01 at the bottom of that page we can see that um cavity barrier a we only need to look at the end of this we don't need all the detail that had a free air gap of the cavity 50 millimeters
02:51:12 millimeters wide yes
02:51:17 you see the very final sentence the free air gap of the cavity was 50 millimeters wide
02:51:22 wide yes yes and we can see page six cavity barrier b we can see at the end of the text on
02:51:34 we can see at the end of the text on cavity barrier b that that had a free air gap of the cavity of 44 millimeters wide and then at page seven we can see that cavity barrier c also had an air gap of 50 millimeters
02:51:46 also had an air gap of 50 millimeters wide
02:51:50 yes is that correct yes so in april 2014 cider eyes were testing its cavity barriers to this standard with air gaps of up to 50
02:52:01 standard with air gaps of up to 50 millimeters yes yes and then if we go to page 18
02:52:11 uh this is where we get a section called expression of results and then if we go to the first paragraph of that it says technical failure of the integrity and insulation would deem to
02:52:22 integrity and insulation would deem to have occurred at the start of the test due to the open void required for such seal types however following the rapid expansion of the intermediate layer the gap becomes fully sealed
02:52:33 fully sealed and the product achieved the integrity stated below and then it goes on due to the nature of ventilated open state cavity various seals an initial spike in temperature is recorded by the
02:52:45 spike in temperature is recorded by the thermocouples positioned in the air gap adjacent to the seal as it is open to the furnace the temperature is rapidly reduced once the seals react and fill the whole cavity
02:52:56 cavity the air gap insulation figure quoted in the results disregards this initial spike in temperature provided the test provided the temperature returns to below 180 degrees c
02:53:08 below 180 degrees c rise within the first five minutes of the test
02:53:13 the test do you see that so so that that is quite a good description isn't it of um how this test is attempting to take uh temperature readings
02:53:26 to take uh temperature readings um given the initial spike in temperature that's experienced yes yes but and also this test as in previous pages you will see it has
02:53:37 as in previous pages you will see it has pir combustible insulation above and below the seals so that in the first fight well at any point during the test should the combustible insulation above the cavity barrier
02:53:50 the cavity barrier catch fire or increase its temperature above the 180 then it's a fail so it also measures that element yes i understand um and in the table
02:54:01 yes i understand um and in the table then we can see the results for integrity and insulation um just focusing on the uh on the right for the moment under insulation
02:54:13 the moment under insulation it says insulation fixed thermocouples and then air gap insulation suspended thermocouples can you just help us as to why we're seeing different figures there
02:54:24 why we're seeing different figures there okay the
02:54:26 okay the this has been clarified further in tgg19 the air gap insulation suspended thermocouples are only there to measure the closure
02:54:40 are only there to measure the closure of the intumescent intumescent by its nature
02:54:44 nature expands and it expands multi-directional so these thermocouples are suspended above
02:54:52 above the cavity when during the test the intervention continues to expand and does can engulf the thermocouples
02:55:07 engulf the thermocouples right so in terms of what we're looking at
02:55:11 at um the insulation figure that you would you would take and you would um take forward from this are we looking at the one in the left hand
02:55:20 hand column or the right hand column the fixed thermocouples yeah so barrier a would have 39 minutes installation b 46 and c 53 yes that's correct
02:55:32 b 46 and c 53 yes that's correct i see so on the right we're just seeing some extra measurements that are taken through that air gap insulation process exactly that and they're there to assist uh the
02:55:43 and they're there to assist uh the assessment by further fire engineers or project consultants yeah suitability of products and then on the left we've got integrity um we
02:55:54 on the left we've got integrity um we can see in the middle gap gauge is not applicable that's the the poker stick which previously would have given a fail so that's held not applicable then we've got
02:56:03 got cotton pad and continuous flaming again can you help us which is the integrity figure that you would use based on this tests the lesser
02:56:14 use based on this tests the lesser figure
02:56:14 figure of either right i see so if if either a cotton pad were ignited or there was continuous flaming whichever happens first that's your integrity figure yes yes i
02:56:27 that's your integrity figure yes yes i see
02:56:27 see yes and then underneath that table we can see we get some helpful data about the time that was
02:56:38 helpful data about the time that was taken for the ventilated cavity to be sealed yes yes so we can see for the first asterix it's referring to cavity barrier a it was sealed at 22 minutes 22 seconds
02:56:52 it was sealed at 22 minutes 22 seconds cavity barrier b it says the failure criteria was not achieved upon termination of the test at 62 minutes yes yes and then
02:57:04 yes yes and then we've got um
02:57:11 for continuous flaming for cavity barrier b it says failure after the ventilated cavity was sealed at one minute 44 seconds so what's that telling us
02:57:22 what's that telling us it's basically if you look at uh cavity a was a 50 millimeter gap um it closed in two minutes 22 seconds in cavity b is a 44 millimeter gap
02:57:34 in cavity b is a 44 millimeter gap so by reducing it by six millimeters you increase you increase the performance of the rapidness for yeah and and cavity barrier c was also a 50 millimeter
02:57:45 50 millimeter cavity wasn't it and that's that's sealed at three minutes 19 seconds yes yeah
02:57:56 and again these are r d tests to establish
02:57:59 establish uh product development yes mr chairman i think that's probably an appropriate moment i'm still kind of midway through this topic but um i'm about to
02:58:10 i'm about to refer to some other testing so well if that suits you we'll stop there yes it does thank you all right all right now mr mo we're going to have a break now so we can all get some lunch yes
02:58:21 can all get some lunch yes we'll come back at two o'clock please and again
02:58:24 and again i have to remind you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it over the break all right and thank you very much see you two o'clock then thank you thank you
02:58:51 you