Current affairs


much’, Mr Passey noting that approved documents deal with a more ‘prescriptive approach’. A key objective is that evacuation is complete


where building regulations begin taking hold, and so in terms of business resilience and property protection, you should aim to hit a ‘different objective’ of the legislative requirements. Evacuation should not rely on fire and rescue services or their involvement ‘for it to be effective’ according to government guidance, with the need to plan, rehearse, have a strategy and a duty of care integral for the responsible person. Planning is not just about routes and


compartmentation, but about understanding human behaviour, with evacuation time related to recognition and response. Other areas of planning include dealing with the fire, building and occupant characteristics, protocols and procedures. Different types of evacuation include single and two stage; phased or horizontal; and progressive horizontal, as well as stay put, with all of these relying on ‘good standards of protection and compartmentation’ alongside FRA levels and competency. On people, Mr Passey pointed out that we all


‘behave strangely’, and that it is best to ‘address misconceptions’ as to whether people would or wouldn’t leave, and why they might not, showing a clip of the fire at the Station nightclub in Rhode Island as an example. Discussing different times and policies, he referred to the fact that there is a ‘lot of guidance’ on evacuation for landlords and building owners, alongside practical measures. These are premises dependent, and can include security patrols, relocation of combustible materials, relocation of smoking areas, limiting or forbidding parking in close proximity to buildings, and disabling staff alarms that can cause a delay in evacuation.


Passive fire protection


Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) head of training Phil Brownhill examined PFP, noting that there is technical guidance available for different methods and issues, alongside codes of practice. PFP means that you ‘rarely come across the effects of fire’, with very few people ever involved in a fire – leading to common misconceptions. These include that wood burns, steel does not collapse, concrete is fireproof, holes are a maintenance issue and that there is always time to get out. PFP is defined as ‘built in measures that protect the structure of a building and subdivide it into areas to limit spread of fire and smoke’, and Mr Brownhill showed a series of photographic examples of where it had worked perfectly to prevent the spread of fire and injury or death, in industrial and residential spheres. Protection covers structural elements including steel, concrete and timber, allowing them


to maintain stability. Steel loses half its strength at 500°C, with non reactive coatings or boards alongside reactive materials helping to protect it from fire. Non reactive coatings are often spray based, thick, inert until activation and hidden; while boards and casings are constructed from mineral wool and can be mechanically fixed. Often hidden, they are also up to 50mm thick. Reactive coatings meanwhile are often sprayed or brushed on in a thin layer, and expand into char around a structure; while thicknesses are determined by a required period of resistance, as well as the size or weight of steel. Thicker and heavier steel takes longer to heat up, so consequently requires less protection, Mr Brownhill said, showcasing some poor examples of this and explaining that paints ‘need to be applied carefully’ due to saponification. Moving to compartmentation, he noted that


this works by subdividing buildings into ‘areas of manageable risk’, with calcium silicate one of many materials used. This method aims to provide an ‘adequate means of escape’ and to ‘stop adjacent spread’ by providing fire separation between adjacent or adjoining buildings, allowing fire services to access a site and to be protected. In an FRA’s look at PFP, elements looked for


include lining materials for walls and ceilings on all escape routes, fire doors on escape routes, walls and ceilings on those routes featuring protection, ‘especially above corridor ends’, and checking for ‘penetrating services’ in walls, ceilings and floors. Most assessments will not undertake a detailed inspection of structural fire protection, but any ‘significant deficiencies’ are to be reported and inspected by a third party.


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2018 45


FOCUS


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