Airliners.net

I am surprised that this has not been posted yet, but a fire burned through an 18 floor skyscraper in Milan on Sunday and questions have been raised about the cladding. The building was only built in 2011, so there will definitely be an investigation into this. Wondering how all this will turn out.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dezeen ... nfell/amp/

I saw the news and I thought they were somehow doing repair work on the cosmetics of the building, I thought the exterior had stagers ("scaffolding") for workers to do their job. I think it has not received more coverage because thankfully no one was killed or even seriously hurt as far as the latest is concerned. Hopefully no one will be found in the aftermath that was not able to reach outer safety.

Derico wrote:

I saw the news and I thought they were somehow doing repair work on the cosmetics of the building, I thought the exterior had stagers ("scaffolding") for workers to do their job. I think it has not received more coverage because thankfully no one was killed or even seriously hurt as far as the latest is concerned. Hopefully no one will be found in the aftermath that was not able to reach outer safety.

If no ones got hurt or seriously injured, the fire protection measure has held well. Everything can catch fire, the main purpose of all fire protection measures in buildings is for people to get out safe, not to save the building itself. That is an important distinction to make.
But sure, hopefully, they will investigate and draw up some conclusions in order to improve safety further. Just as they do in aviation.

Is 18 stories really a "skyscraper"?

johns624 wrote:

Is 18 stories really a "skyscraper"?

My thoughts too. Basically most planning authorities refer to buildings of that height as a residential highrise, but 'skyscraper' to my mind is at least 400 ft/120 m - something that would be among the tallest buildings in a medium-size city.

johns624 wrote:

Is 18 stories really a "skyscraper"?

In context, yes. In NYC that would just be a building. In Milan, or, say, my little city in NE Tennessee, it would be a landmark because I think our tallest is ten stories.

Recall the lyrics: "Everything's up to date in Kansas City, they went and gone as far as they could go, they went and built a skyscraper, seven sto-reys high, about as tall as a building oughta grow!"

WesternDC6B wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Is 18 stories really a "skyscraper"?

In context, yes. In NYC that would just be a building. In Milan, or, say, my little city in NE Tennessee, it would be a landmark because I think our tallest is ten stories.

Recall the lyrics: "Everything's up to date in Kansas City, they went and gone as far as they could go, they went and built a skyscraper, seven sto-reys high, about as tall as a building oughta grow!"

You may not be too familiar with Milan, but there are many skyscrapers there. An 18-story building does not stand out incredibly unless it was the only structure of its kind in a district.

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=834

johns624 wrote:

Is 18 stories really a "skyscraper"?

Only if you're from the 19th century, even if it was twice the height of anything else in the same city.

johns624 wrote:

Is 18 stories really a "skyscraper"?

The term skyscraper originally applied to buildings of 10 to 20 stories, but by the late 20th century the term was used
to describe high-rise buildings of unusual height, generally greater than 40 or 50 stories.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/skyscraper

One could also argue that 40-50 stories is "too low" nowadays (just as 10-20 became not high enough 20 years) and that it should be twice that height or higher then 400m.

Aaron747 wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Is 18 stories really a "skyscraper"?

In context, yes. In NYC that would just be a building. In Milan, or, say, my little city in NE Tennessee, it would be a landmark because I think our tallest is ten stories.

Recall the lyrics: "Everything's up to date in Kansas City, they went and gone as far as they could go, they went and built a skyscraper, seven sto-reys high, about as tall as a building oughta grow!"

You may not be too familiar with Milan, but there are many skyscrapers there. An 18-story building does not stand out incredibly unless it was the only structure of its kind in a district.

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=834

Ahh! Thank you, and, I stand corrected. An internet chat buddy lives there, and if all of this covid nonsense every winds down, I plan to visit him, and see Milan.

What I find peculiar, and the article touched on this, was that the fire extension went down. Fires don’t typically do that.

This cladding stuff seems to be more trouble than it’s worth if it can provide an extension path for the fire.

fr8mech wrote:

What I find peculiar, and the article touched on this, was that the fire extension went down. Fires don’t typically do that.

This cladding stuff seems to be more trouble than it’s worth if it can provide an extension path for the fire.

It’s Italian construction. Not really their forte in the postwar years...

Aaron747 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

What I find peculiar, and the article touched on this, was that the fire extension went down. Fires don’t typically do that.

This cladding stuff seems to be more trouble than it’s worth if it can provide an extension path for the fire.

It’s Italian construction. Not really their forte in the postwar years...

Look how rundown that other building looks, too. I think it's called the "coliseum" or something like that. It looks positively ancient!

There was polystyrene in it so I guess it was insulation not just an aesthetic cladding.

This building used a rain screen exterior panel system much like the Grenfell Towers had. It was a foam faced on both sides with a 26 gauge aluminum bonded as a composite. This is placed with a 1" minimum air space behind that is flashed "to weather" so any wind driven rain that gets thru the exterior drains back out. On the other side of the air gap is the thermal insulation of the building.

https://www.dezeen.com/2017/06/19/grenf ... ture-news/

In the US, exterior cladding that is combustible can only be used in what are called Type 3 to 5 combustible construction. Type 1 and 2 are non combustible, basically no foam insulation that is not covered by drywall for any of the larger buildings where Type 1 and 2 are required, combustible construction is usually limited to 10,000 SF without sprinklers, and about 6 stories with sprinklers and the floors having at least a 1 hour fire rating.

With combustible insulation the flames shoot up the air gap, protected by the aluminum from the hose stream. A really bad design for high rises - the UK will not allow the sale of a building right now that is over a nominal size unless the cladding is removed. A cladding change out could cost 50% or more of the building's value. Whoever puts this into their buildings should be sent to prison.

Hence the value in WWII and even 30 years later of asbestos insulation. It does the job, it insulates, it does not burn, it lasts. And our local paper daily has ads from attorneys suing the navy and government because that asbestos is still killing people. But it really did help end the war. And the British navy knew in the 1920s that asbestos was dangerous to humans. Probably the benefit versus danger ratio during WWII justified using it.