Adair Lewis looks into whether warehouse fire statistics support


widely held assumptions in firefighting and insurance


to be large fires that cause considerable damage, and often pose a challenge to firefighters. They can also result in inconvenience to local residents, who may have to leave their homes temporarily during the height of a blaze. Do the statistics support these preconceptions, or is the reality different? Statistics on warehouse fires are collated by


Warehouses risk review N


EWS OF a warehouse fire tends to hit the headlines, and make firefighters’ (and insurers’) hearts sink – as they tend


RISCAuthority as a subset of ‘warehouse and bulk storage’ fires, and attempts have been made here to avoid confusion between these two groups. In the nine years from January 2009 to December 2017, there were 293 major fires in ‘warehouse and bulk storage’ premises (an average of 32 each year), of which 143 (about 16 a year) were in warehouses. The problem is therefore real, as warehouse fires account for 2.7% of all large loss fires, with each event costing an average of £1,126,171 – totalling 8.1% of the losses in major fires. Bearing in mind that warehouse fires account


for almost half (48.8%) of the incidents in the ‘warehouse and bulk storage’ category, it is not surprising that many of the statistics show little variation between the parent group and the subset. For example, there is little difference between the proportions of fires caused accidentally and deliberately and the times of day at which the fires occurred. There is a significant difference however when considering the problems experienced by fire and rescue services on attending the events. In the case of warehouses, there were significantly fewer problems concerning access and occurrence of acetylene cylinders, although inadequate water


52 OCTOBER 2018 www.frmjournal.com


supplies continue to be a common problem in all cases where bulk materials are stored. Detailed examination of the components of


the insured losses shows that about half were associated with building damage, and about 20% due to business interruption. It is curious, however, that the records show that less than 2% resulted from loss of contents, although around 20% were attributed to loss of stock. There is therefore a clear anomaly in the interpretation of these two headings when returns are made, although it is difficult to envisage what warehouse ‘contents’ are – other than stock. It is interesting to note that 4.8% of losses


were due to loss of rent, whereas in the case of ‘warehouse and bulk storage’ this figure is only 0.5%. This will reflect differing business models of these two groups, as significant parts of warehouses must be let or sublet to clients. It raises the question of whether the let areas were constructed as separate fire compartments within the premises, which is doubtful with the current evidence. Another obvious question concerns the


effectiveness of water sprinkler installations in warehouses. Surveys of UK sprinkler activations during 2013 and 2014, compiled by the National Fire Sprinkler Network (NFSN), reveal five events where sprinklers have been recorded as being particularly effective in warehouses. In July 2013 sprinklers contained a fire to a fork lift truck, and in 2014, sprinklers were recorded as being effective in restricting a fire to a plant room; in fighting fires on mezzanine racking and in high racked clothing; and in preventing a fire in an external shipping container from gaining ingress into the main warehouse. None of these events are believed to have developed into a major fire, and thus sprinklers


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