Building risks Falling short
In particular, there appears to be a lack of understanding in relation to fire control and what is required to reach even the most minimum standards. Whether the necessary performance is 60 minutes, 120 minutes or even higher, there is very little understanding of the differences between reaction to and resistance to fire, and the nuances between the two. For example, specifying a Euroclass A1 does not mean that it will achieve a 60 minute performance. There needs to be more education about reaction and resistance, and how both need to be considered in the early stages of design. If we take insulation as an example, there has been a large focus on CO2
reduction and
thermal properties by both the construction industry and government. However, cuts have been largely achieved by adding combustible insulation to the building envelope, particularly in high rise structures, without proper focus on the safety implications in terms of fire. Fire protection measures lack the priority they
deserve: they should be considered as essential as the foundation of the building or the building envelope, and built into initial designs and within products. They should not be a mere afterthought near the end of the process to make sure a box is ticked, which can put people’s lives at stake, and it’s hard to understand why it is not taken as seriously as it should be.
Interrogation and change
When it comes down to it, it could be argued that there are two parts of the build programme that are in need of immediate attention. These are the following: 1. The overall design, in particular ensuring that the priced project with the ‘equal and approved’ reference meets the performance requirement on all levels, and in particular against fire.
2. The necessity to supervise and police the construction programme to ensure that nothing less than the correct products are being installed in the correct way by the appropriate and qualified contractors, and that they are then maintained correctly.
A mammoth task perhaps, particularly for an industry that is notoriously slow and resistant to change, but as the situation needs improvement, we must consider how we can remove as much risk as possible with a few simple alterations. Don’t forget that breaking it up into smaller tasks all adds up. So, greater levels of control are needed across: • materials – ensuring they’re part of an umbrella accreditation and testing system, to ensure consistency and compliance from all manufacturers • cost – should not come first, and that
FOCUS
www.frmjournal.com JUNE 2019
25
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
