Different buildings


major factor to be considered – the behaviour of the human being undertaking the work. All those undertaking fire risk assessments, insurance surveys of property and so forth regularly see the designs of the buildings to protect life compromised in some manner. Some of the simpler examples, because they can easily be seen, will include repairs or damage not being addressed properly. These might include missing or damaged fire stopping in service risers or through compartment walls, damage to the intumescent strip in fire doors or doors not closing correctly, and sprinkler heads painted over. More complex examples, because they rely on


technical knowledge, include the storage heights and storage arrangements when sprinklers are installed, the servicing and maintenance of critical plant such as smoke extraction systems or sprinklers, and compromising the joined up fire compartmentation strategy. The age of the building can be an influencing


factor as general wear and tear occurs, or the reason for the designed-in measures for life safety (eg the compartment walls) being forgotten. Furthermore, the use of single cores containing


the stairs, lifts and service risers may increase the hazards to occupants, especially during or after remedial works when maintaining safety measures or undertaking repairs is not taking place. Over time, buildings are adapted in layout


or use, and when this occurs, the original safety measures could be compromised by poor workmanship or economic decisions that may come into play. Recent examples include the proposal to locate prefabricated pod style offices in an atrium as it was cheap, but this increased the fire load in the sterile area, as well as the installation of ‘market’ style stalls in the general mall area of shopping centres, especially in the Christmas period, as an easy option to increase revenue earned, but increasing the fire load in an area not designed for this purpose.


Under construction


All of the previous information relates to completed and occupied buildings that have life safety protections – in complex buildings, these will probably include combinations of automatic fire detection, sprinkler systems, compartments, fire stopping and smoke extraction. However, throughout the construction phase of such buildings, none of these permanent life safety features are likely to be in place and operating. However, the structure will be at its finished height, where firefighters can encounter difficulties and the insulation materials are likely to be exposed and so available to fuel a fire.


FOCUS


What can we do?


Changes are generally made to legislation following catastrophic incidents involving the loss of life, such as at Grenfell Tower. Any changes to legislation, such as the Building Regulations, are often applied to new builds and not retrospectively due to the economic penalty that would be placed on existing property owners to make good their buildings. Altering human behaviour and culture is a long


term project to ensure that the life safety design standards of a building are maintained throughout the building’s lifetime. In multi occupancy buildings this becomes a greater challenge. It is likely that a combination of education, training, setting high standards and penalties is going to be required. The conclusion to be drawn is that, to achieve the basic life safety standard, the Building Regulations have to undergo regular review to attempt to stay ahead of technology, rapidly changing construction methods, materials and the likely use of a building. Strengthening the standards should lead to improved community resilience to protect lives and livelihoods, and ensure that businesses survive and continue to contribute to a community’s prosperity. To complement the regulation, the methods for


testing materials have to be fit for purpose to allow the understanding of how a fire will start and spread in a realistic, larger size test sample. Unfortunately, the laboratory style testing favoured in the past may not represent the actual circumstances of use and therefore needs to be reconsidered. In addition, the opportunity could be taken to use less combustible material in the design and construction, making it easier to deliver safer and more resilient outcomes


Bill Jones is property risk engineer at Aviva. For more information, view page 5


www.frmjournal.com JULY/AUGUST 2018 15


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