FOCUS
Fire Sector Summit
energy systems are complex and their installation can break down compartmentation, leading to fire ingress and spread through voids. In 2013, the All Party Parliamentary Fire Group
reported it was not aware of incidences of increased life risk specifically attributable to MCM, yet trends are clear: increased areas of fire damage confirmed by research and statistics; higher rates of fire spread noted by fire services; greater incidence of external fire spread; fires in voids that can invalidate ‘stay put’ evacuation procedures; and increased susceptibility to low quality ignition sources. The government, repeatedly provided with evidence of such cases, has responded that these are insurance matters. The automotive industry rates cars for both
safety and sustainability, so why not a sustainability model for buildings that does not ignore resilience? Such a model might be based on BREAM with BIM; sustainability without the use of poor fire performing products; a higher bar set by regulation; and better education about resilient, sustainable choices.
Australia’s construction code
ABCB’s Brian Ashe charted in the following plenary the evolution of Australia’s National Construction Code (NCC) and the impact of the 2014 Lacrosse high rise fire in Melbourne, which raised questions about code compliance and external cladding. As each Australian state and territory has
responsibility for its own building regulations, a national code was introduced for consistency in 1996, placing health and safety before amenity and sustainability, and replacing prescription with mandatory requirements related to performance. Illustrating how the code is being supported and built on through education, training and guidance, he used examples and case studies to show how performance solutions are developed using the NCC and educational guides, such as ABCB’s. As performance requirements are subjective,
stakeholders often impose levels of performance on others when government should decide. Methods used to assess whether building solutions meet health and safety performance requirements set to a level of risk tolerable for both the individual and society include: documentary evidence, verification methods, expert judgments and comparison with provisions that are ‘deemed to satisfy’. ‘Keeping up with the pace of change and
change of use in buildings are key factors’, said Mr Ashe. The Lacrosse fire had resulted in a wholesale expert review that included roles and responsibilities; licensing and accreditation; design and documentation; quality control; competency; certification and inspection. A comprehensive suite of measures to improve fire safety in high rise buildings was proposed, including for cladding. A three year process encompasses new testing
standards for façade assemblies; clear and contemporary requirements, tools and supporting materials; improved awareness of non compliance risks; and enhanced auditing and enforcement. NCC 2016 Volume One, Amendment 1 came
into effect during this process, and is undergoing review, with improvements proposed for NCC 2019. These include quantified performance requirements for health and safety (including fire) at 1% of background risk; a holistic review of Fire Safety Measures Stage 1 (residential buildings), including sprinklers deemed to satisfy provisions; fire safety verification methods; sprinklers in residential care facilities; new bushfire protection provisions for buildings accommodating vulnerable people; and a review of international fire engineering guidelines. ‘A performance based code is a very powerful instrument,’ he emphasised, warning this can introduce uncertainty. This can be addressed by specifying tolerable risk levels rather than highest risk. ‘We’re not looking at zero risk – it’s all about balance; the NCC sets the optimal level for society.’
Upgrading protection
The first heritage workshop focused on upgrading fire protection in historic buildings, with Bob Bantock, operational risk business partner at the National Trust, citing Charles II as the first fire commander in the light of the Great Fire of London. While lessons were learned then, ‘we are still
repeating ourselves’, with such buildings largely remote and reliant on appliances, Mr Bantock asking how can fires be put out if the water has gone, or with scarce resources? He pointed out that alarms and detectors are placed ‘all over’ such properties as a result. He looked at fires in Trust properties, focusing on the Clandon House fire, which began in the basement but spread to the building’s roof across compartmentation, resulting in huge cost. A neutral bar was the cause, but the Trust ‘expected
38 DECEMBER 2017/JANUARY 2018
www.frmjournal.com
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
