18
VIEWS
It is less well known that ‘escape of water’ events in domestic and residential settings exceed the combined cost of both fire and security insured losses
The MMC revolution not only introduces combustible materials where once non- combustible versions were used, but the assembly methods can introduce many more voids in which fire can spread out of sight and reach, and in all directions. This one feature, if allowed or left unprotected, can prevent the insurer from assigning an EML of anything but 100%. The exclusive ‘life safety’ goals of our Building Regulations are time-based, and this is reflected in every calculation of travel distance and product performance. But in time, the insurer can only assume that fire will break into these voids which raises the most difficult question: ‘What ultimately puts the fire out?’
extinguishment of the fire, limitation of damage, and there being enough left of the building to recover and ‘make good,’ all of these features are outside the scope of what is mandated, and must be specifically designed for. The fact that we have grown used to buildings being ‘recoverable’ is an incidental consequence of historically using fire-resistant materials to support the ‘life safety’ solution.
It is evident that strong adaptation of the International Building Code in the US specifically for mass timber construction provides great comfort to insurers, allowing them to treat these buildings in many cases on a near equitable basis as more traditional constructions (combustible voids will be protected or filled, internal surfaces will be lined with gypsum board, the building will have sprinklers, etc.)
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
Estimating maximum loss The key parameter used by insurers for the initial estimation of potential loss is the Estimated Maximum Loss or EML. To insure every building as though every fire event would lead to a total loss (EML: 100%), would usually be both expensive and unreasonable. A crude example for the multi-storey environment might conclude that the fire floor would be lost, two floors above would experience smoke damage, and a floor below would experience water damage. For a 20-storey building, the EML would be four floors of 20, or 20%. However, this calculation makes some important assumptions, the most important one being that the fire is constrained to the single floor, and that is a hard-earned privilege.
What’s the solution? A proposed solution demands the hybridisation of building methods and materials: the light use of low carbon concrete in areas of significant risk, and the extensive use of timber for majority floor plate applications. A first floor of concrete can protect against flood risks and accidental and deliberate fire raising during the construction phase, concrete cores can provide non-combustible conduits for vertical services routing and increase building stability that might support a greater level of effectiveness from attending fire services. Taking these thoughts further, perhaps the wet risks of bathrooms and kitchens could also be located in the core to further reduce potential loss. Whatever the solution presented, it is essential that the designer or architect has an appreciation of EML, and a requirement to specifically design in measures that will enable the insurer to assign a value that is less than 100%. Compliance with Building Regulations alone has never been less meaningful to the insurability of a building. The white paper can be downloaded from the FPA website (
www.thefpa.co.uk).
Professor James Glockling is a consultant and former technical director of the Fire Protection Association and RISCAuthority
ADF NOVEMBER 2022
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
