44
such as manufacturers’ own ‘desktop studies’ on fire performance being called into question. Commentators have expressed the view that testing should be undertaken for proposed combinations of products for specific projects, on elements such as external walls, rather than for individual products. This had resounding support from our survey respondents, 88% of whom said that there should be “testing and verification of a set of details for safety-first cladding build-ups, rather than for individual products.” Only 5% said that assembled systems should not be tested. This idea resonated with many survey respondents, such as one who commented: “A set of acceptable details will protect designers and users. Like the robust details which were produced some time ago.” Another put the case for system testing simply: “You can assemble safe products in a dangerous way.” And a further respondent said that testing needs to be comprehensive and transparent: “If we really want to be serious about compliance with fire testing, a multitude of fire tested build up of details and building conditions need to be carried out and made publicly available in the market.”
One anonymous respondent summed up the problem; that currently there was “a lack of clarity about levels of performance of construction materials.” Another said there was a “lack of skill and competence within the consultancy base and supply chain,” alongside “limited test and certification evidence of products.” These were therefore “incompatible with fire specification requirements and other project constraints,” (citing services, general co-ordination, spatial fit and ‘compatibility with fabric materials’).
EXPERT VIEW
Richard Harrison (ACA) says system testing is the way forward: “It is important that a combination of products assembled together in a unique way should be proven to work as an assembly before implementation. All tests should be recorded and made available for scrutiny and re-use, refinement or rejection if they have failed. One of the classic errors in the industry has been the propensity to ‘do what we did last time,’ thereby repeating potential failures as has been proven by the Grenfell tragedy. Desktop assessments can no longer be regarded as acceptable.”
Design compromises
A majority of respondents (60%) believed that the new regulatory regime would mean that architects would have to confront ‘challenging’ design compromises. However, as architect Richard Harrison commented: “All design is challenging, and this is normally relished by architects because it is what we trained for. I do not believe that designing safe buildings is a compromise, but should be a fundamental requirement.”
One respondent commented that material selection would be compromised due to the “lack of trust between specifiers and
“Are architects likely to be keen to take up the oversight of safety under the expanded Principal Designer role, even if they are able, given the level of scrutiny and responsibility for safety?”
manufacturers.” Another said that a “lack of comprehensive Professional Indemnity Insurance” for architects would be a factor constraining designs, and their creativity.
Conclusion
Richard Harrison of the ACA believes that a “sea change” is underway in the industry. However, he thinks it needs to gravitate towards collaborative contracting as its “default methodology.” Harrison concludes: “Construction has always been fundamentally a team activity, but this has been forgotten by the race to the bottom on project costing, and thinking in silos.” Our survey shows that architects back the aims behind the Building Safety Act, given the catastrophic nature of what happened at Grenfell Tower, and the urgency of the need to safeguard residents against something similar in future. However, our survey results show it is a very complex picture, with a fragmented industry with a series of different drivers, and the answers to address this have not all been arrived at yet. The Golden Thread is a path towards more scrutiny, rigour, and ultimately, safer buildings. However it requires architects to be given the chance to oversee a newly collaborative industry so that they are not isolated, and endangered professionally. Is it time for manufacturers, architects and contractors to come together more fundamentally to share their views and approaches to make the step change in procurement that’s needed? To download the full version of this whitepaper free, please visit
www.architectsdatafile.co.uk/white-papers
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF SEPTEMBER 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
