Lodha NCP: Expert opinion from an international dry-wall specialist

Hi guys. I received this letter from a professional who works for a global contractor for dry-wall technology projects. The letter from Mr Matthew Thomas explains what exactly is wrong with the gypsum board walls at Lodha New Cuffe Parade. The letter, which was emailed to me, was read out aloud by me in this video. If you prefer to read it, the email is copy-pasted below. -------------------------------------------------------------------- matthew thomas <matthewthomasdrywall@yahoo.com>

Jan 19, 2019, 9:21 PM (2 days ago)

To Mr Krishnaraj Rao I have been involved in Senior level management in the drywall industry both in South Africa and Europe for over twenty years and would like to highlight certain items to you regarding your drywall videos,  more specifically titled “Lodha NCP punching holes in Dioro wall” The use of drywall in a residential tower would not be considered an unusual form of construction, it would be standard in many countries, but alarmingly the construction of the partitions in your video bring to light some questions relating to the gypsum partitions shown, and the way they have been installed, if the partitions have been installed correctly it would not have been so easy to punch through them as there would be a steel support member at all the required positions on the board (This is shown at minute 1.52 in this video) There are very clear guidelines from each manufacturer as to how the partitions should be installed, and when followed correctly should provide a quality robust finish.  In the video you have shown, where the horizontal joints of the boards are , there is a missing cross member in the steel framing, this cross member is not only required for strength it is required to enable the correct placement of the screw fixing at the centres around the perimeter and joint of the board as specified by the manufacturers.  This is not an optional element in the partition framework it is expressly specified by the system manufacturer. (This is also shown at 1.52 minutes into the video) It is clearly visible at 1.58 minutes to  2.19 minutes in the “Busting Lodha wall” video that the gypsum boards have been installed incorrectly. The gypsum boards on opposing sides of the wall have not been staggered on alternate studs, this indicates that the joints of the board are on the same stud on both sides of the wall. This is contrary to all manufactures installation guidelines globally as it diminishes the durability of the partition, and in a fire rated partition assembly would be considered unacceptable. Depending on the manufacturer the specifications will change slightly but the theory remains the same , as this is how the partitions will have been laboratory tested for fire and acoustic properties. Installation outside the manufacturers guidelines is not recommended and diminishes the performance of the partition in both fire rating and acoustic properties. You mention that the material used is Saint-Gobain (1.27),which is a leading manufacturer of construction material , and in this case ,drywall board and metal suppler ,however it is a prerequisite in the installation guide of this manufacturer that the screw centres are at a maximum of 300mm, and have this noggin channel in place, without this noggin channel the required fixing centres cannot be maintained, and therefore the partition performance will be affected.  Has the noggin channel been missed in this location or omitted totally throughout?? , as it does not appear to be installed in either partition in any of the videos I have witnessed. At 1.52 minutes into the first video and .17 seconds in the 2nd video. It can be seen that no noggin channel is in place. The socket and switch installation adheres to no manufacturers installation guidelines and as such meets no standard as it appears to be a section of floor track that has been crudely adapted to support a switch. As this is an untested method of installation it is very unlikely that a leading brand of drywall material supply would accept this as a quality installation of their product to support an electrical outlet. All manufacturers have a design detail for installation of electrical outlets and this has not been followed in the installation that you have presented. My main concern would turn to the installation of the fire compartmentation partitions of the building, moreover ,this being the fire rated partitions and the shaft wall fire rated partitions that form the passive fire protection throughout the building through resistance to heat and flame and maintain the fire line for the required time.  Partitions between flats, known as party walls, and common areas like lift waiting areas/lobbies must carry a severe duty rating, these partitions, when constructed correctly will provide a fire resistance of 120 minutes, constructed incorrectly the resistance time to fire is unknown. It is clear from the video (Titled, How safe are Lodha flats from thieves and moisture) that there is a large hole through a fire rated drywall partition that forms what appears to be a fire rated service riser that travels vertically outside (and somewhat) inside the flat, there is no passive fire protection applied to this penetration and the same location (this is shown at 1.15-1.20 minutes) does not seem to have a fire rated door mounted in the opening to form the fireline (this is shown at 0.44 seconds), it would be imperative that the fire compartmentation here is maintained, if this is where the fireline is. In this location, or any other location where there are unknown or unplanned penetrations in a fire rated partition like the one previously discussed, smoke and/or flame can pass through this penetration into the void. This makes the drywall fire rated partition in this location obsolete as it is unable to provide the required resistance, penetrations like this must be identified and sealed correctly. Having penetrations in fire walls like this permits the passage of fire from room to room within a flat, or worse beyond the defined fire compartment. Fire compartmentation is an essential element in high rise construction and it is essential that it is maintained and installed correctly, whether it is block/brick, fire stopping or fire rated drywall partition. Drywall fire compartmentation drawings are used worldwide should be available to view on the plans of this structure. With clearly defined fire lines. Is this the case in other locations also? This would need a full inspection from an independent observer to guarantee that there have been no other exposed openings in firewalls like the one in the video, not just in fire rated partitions but block work and slab penetrations that go from floor to floor vertically. From the video Titled Sewage pipes and fire hazards inside bedrooms  In relation to the room inside the master bedroom from that carries sewer/water pipes vertically through the building, it is important that the passage of fire cannot travel from flat to flat. At 0.28 it shows the flat owner standing on a metal grate with penetrations, a similar metal grate is shown at 1.28 above at the level of the upstairs neighbors flat. In this location there is no passive fire protection preventing transfer of fire to the adjoining flat.  Can you confirm that this is a fire door on this sewer/water/service riser and how many flats are exposed vertically like this? like There should be passive fire protection in the form of a blockwork wall, fire rated partition or fire rated mortar between each floor at slab level as passive fire protection to prevent the vertical movement of fire throughout the structure. My concern would be that a fire in the master bedroom or anywhere in that flat could simply transfer to the apartment above through this service duct as it is currently shown, or several flats if there is no fire protection. I would highlight these issues to a fire officer that would be accountable in case of fire, unlike water , fire does not give a second chance. I would strongly recommend that access is gained to the ceiling void above the false ceiling for the following reasons, as they are commonly omitted, and by these omissions the fire ratings of walls are compromised and acoustic properties are made redundant.  1. Do the gypsum boards that are on all partitions continue up to the slab level at the top and not just above the level of the false ceiling. Otherwise there is free flow of smoke and flame within the ceiling cavity. 2. Are there any penetrations in the fire rated drywall partitions that have not been sealed and are hidden within the ceiling void. If so these will accommodate the transmission of fire and must be identified and addressed. 3.  Has the metal ceiling frame that supports the gypsum boards been installed to the manufacturers guidelines, for example 4. Have the correct fixings been used into the concrete slab, have the correct metal components been used in the assembly, have the correct number of components been used in the assembly and are the components at the correct centres to maintain the stability of the ceiling frame.  Have the correct number of metal to metal screw fixings been used in the support hangers,  This is mandatory to maintain ceiling performance, to prevent ceiling sag, and possibly ceiling failure. A detailed independent review should be conducted on the actual installation of the false ceilings and partitions and compared to the manufacturers installation guidelines and an audit produced. 5. Importantly, have the correct number of fixings been used in the correct locations to maintain the system stability and have the correct fixings been used for each component. Please note that on a previous review on the ceiling installation in new cuffe the false ceilings had not been installed to the manufacturers installation guidelines. While requesting my privacy is respected please be assured that I have detailed knowledge of the global drywall industry and I have made several site visits to this particular project , not just to one tower on the project but 3 towers in total in New Cuffe parade.  The towers I attended had a combination of different drywall material manufacturers, one particular tower had an installation of unbranded metal components that were not being installed to any drywall manufacturers guidelines and had not taken into account even the basic principles of drywall partition assembly.  Components being used in an ad-hoc untested manner that contravened drywall norms. I believe the non compliance to drywall partition installation guidelines, and possibly the inability of the installation team has led to the resulting quality issues in NCP.  While Lodha maybe a big brand, ultimately their quality can only be as good as the subcontractors that they have used for the actual work. Having a large brand ambassador is all good and well but does he know how the pipework has been installed and tested and does he know the drywall has been installed and has the passive fire protection been complete, although a fabulous cricketer, I would not like Virat Koli to do the plumbing in my house.  So Krishnaraj, to conclude, it is of dire importance that the fire related issues discussed are dealt with post haste by a professional. Should a similar issue relating to fire safety arise in the UK, it would be standard procedure for the fire authorities to do an inspection and if problems relating to fire safety were found the whole tower would be evacuated, I have attached two links below to validate this statement. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/london-council-that-evacuated-building-knew-of-fire-door-problem-five-years-ago  https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/camden-to-evacuate-taplow-tower-over-fire-safety-fears-after-grenfell-disaster  Regards, Matthew Thomas