2011-10-25:  NIST’s Recommendations on the 9-11 WTC Building Collapses … GROUP 1. Increased Structural Integrity – Recommendations 1, 2 & 3 (out of 30)

2011-11-18:  NIST WTC Recommendations 4-7 > Structural Fire Endurance … GROUP 2.  Enhanced Fire Endurance of Structures – Recommendations 4, 5, 6 & 7

2011-11-24:  NIST WTC Recommendations 8-11 > New Design of Structures … GROUP 3.  New Methods for Fire Resisting Design of Structures – Recommendations 8, 9, 10 & 11

2011-11-25:  NIST WTC Recommendations 12-15 > Improved Active Protection … GROUP 4.  Improved Active Fire Protection – Recommendations 12, 13, 14 & 15

2011-11-30:  NIST Recommendations 16-20 > Improved People Evacuation … GROUP 5.  Improved Building Evacuation – Recommendations 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20

2011-12-04:  NIST WTC Recommendations 21-24 > Improved Firefighting … GROUP 6.  Improved Emergency Response – Recommendations 21, 22, 23 & 24

2011-12-07:  NIST WTC Recommendations 25-28 > Improved Practices … GROUP 7.  Improved Procedures and Practices – Recommendations 25, 26, 27 & 28

2011-12-08:  NIST WTC Recommendations 29-30 > Improved Fire Education … GROUP 8.  Education and Training – Recommendations 29 & 30 (out of 30)

.

Colour image showing 'The Cloud' Residential Tower Project, in Seoul (South Korea) ... which will be completed in 2015. Design by MVRDV Architects, The Netherlands. Click to enlarge.

.

2011-12-15:  You know what is coming soon … so Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to One and All !!

.

  1.     There were 2 Important Reasons for undertaking this Series of Posts …

(a)       The General Public, and particularly Client Organizations, should be facilitated in directly accessing the core content of the 2005 NIST WTC Recommendations.  Up to now, many people have found this to be a daunting task.  More importantly, I also wanted to clearly show that implementation of the Recommendations is still proceeding far too slowly … and that today, many significant aspects of these Recommendations remain unimplemented.  Furthermore, in the case of some recent key national standards, e.g. British Standard BS 9999, which was published in 2008 … the NIST Recommendations were entirely ignored.

As a golden rule … National Building Codes/Regulations and National Standards … cannot, should not, and must not … be applied without informed thought and many questions, on the part of a building designer !

(b)       With the benefit of hindsight, and our practical experience in FireOx International … I also wanted to add a necessary 2011 Technical Commentary to the NIST Recommendations … highlighting some of the radical implications, and some of the limitations, of these Recommendations … in the hope of initiating a much-needed and long overdue international discussion on the subject.

Colour photograph showing the Taipei 101 Tower, in Taiwan ... which was completed in 2004. Designed by C.Y. Lee & Partners Architects/Planners, Taiwan. Click to enlarge.

” Architecture is the language of a culture.”

” A living building is the information space where life can be found.  Life exists within the space.  The information of space is then the information of life.  Space is the body of the building.  The building is therefore the space, the information, and the life.”

C.Y. Lee & Partners Architects/Planners, Taiwan

[ This is a local dialect of familiar Architectural Language.  However, the new multi-aspect language of Sustainable Design is fast evolving.  In order to perform as an effective and creative member of a Trans-Disciplinary Design & Construction Team ... can Fire Engineers quickly learn to communicate on these wavelengths ??   Evidence to date suggests not ! ]

.

  2.     ‘Climate Change’ & ‘Energy Stability’ – Relentless Driving Forces for Sustainable Design !

Not only is Sustainable Fire Engineering inevitable … it must be !   And not at some distant point in the future … but now … yesterday !!   There is such a build-up of pressure on Spatial Planners and Building Designers to respond quickly, creatively, intuitively and appropriately to the relentless driving forces of Climate Change (including climate change mitigation, adaptation, and severe weather resilience) and Energy Stability (including energy efficiency and conservation) … that there is no other option for the International Fire Science and Engineering Community but to adapt.  Adapt and evolve … or become irrelevant !!

And one more interesting thought to digest … ‘Green’ is not the answer.  ’Green’ looks at only one aspect of Sustainable Human & Social Development … the Environment.  This is a blinkered, short-sighted, simplistic and ill-conceived approach to realizing the complex goal of a Safe and Sustainable Built Environment.  ‘Green’ is ‘Sustainability’ for innocent children !!

Colour image showing the Shanghai Tower Project, in China ... which will be completed in 2014. Design by Gensler Architects & Planners, USA. Click to enlarge.

.

  (a)      Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development (OECD) – 2012′s Environmental Outlook to 2050

Extract from Pre-Release Climate Change Chapter, November 2011 …

‘ Climate change presents a global systemic risk to society.  It threatens the basic elements of life for all people: access to water, food production, health, use of land, and physical and natural capital.  Inadequate attention to climate change could have significant social consequences for human wellbeing, hamper economic growth and heighten the risk of abrupt and large-scale changes to our climatic and ecological systems.  The significant economic damage could equate to a permanent loss in average per capita world consumption of more than 14% (Stern, 2006).  Some poor countries would be likely to suffer particularly severely.  This chapter demonstrates how avoiding these economic, social and environmental costs will require effective policies to shift economies onto low-carbon and climate-resilient growth paths.’

  (b)      U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No.7, November 2011

Executive Summary …

The latest analysis of observations from the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme shows that the globally averaged mixing ratios of Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), Methane (CH₄) and Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) reached new highs in 2010, with CO₂ at 389.0 parts per million (ppm), CH₄ at 1808 parts per billion (ppb) and N₂O at 323.2 ppb.  These values are greater than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 39%, 158% and 20%, respectively.  Atmospheric increases of CO₂ and N₂O from 2009 to 2010 are consistent with recent years, but they are higher than both those observed from 2008 to 2009 and those averaged over the past 10 years.  Atmospheric CH₄ continues to increase, consistent with the past three years.  The U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index shows that from 1990 to 2010 radiative forcing by long-lived Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s) increased by 29%, with CO₂ accounting for nearly 80% of this increase.  Radiative forcing of N₂O exceeded that of CFC-12, making N₂O the third most important long-lived Greenhouse Gas.

  (c)      International Energy Agency (IEA) – World Energy Outlook, November 2011

Extract from Executive Summary …

‘ There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is underway.  Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO₂ emissions to a new high.  Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400 billion.  The number of people without access to electricity remained unacceptably high at 1.3 Billion, around 20% of the world’s population.  Despite the priority in many countries to increase energy efficiency, global energy intensity worsened for the second straight year.  Against this unpromising background, events such as those at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have cast doubts on the reliability of energy supply, while concerns about sovereign financial integrity have shifted the focus of government attention away from energy policy and limited their means of policy intervention, boding ill for agreed global climate change objectives.’

Colour image showing the One World Trade Center Project, in New York City (USA) ... which will be completed in 2013. Design by Skidmore Owings & Merrill, Architects/Planners, USA. Click to enlarge.

[ Not just in the case of Tall, Super-Tall and Mega-Tall Buildings ... but the many, many Other Building Types in the Built Environment ... are Building Designers implementing the 2005 & 2008 NIST WTC Recommendations ... without waiting for Building and Fire Codes/Regulations and Standards to be properly revised and updated ??   Evidence to date suggests not ! ]

.

  3.     Separate Dilemmas for Client Organizations and Building Designers …

As discussed earlier in this Series … the Fire Safety Objectives of Building and Fire Codes/Regulations are limited to:

• The protection of building users/occupants ;   and
• The protection of property … BUT only insofar as that is relevant to the protection of the users/occupants ;

… because the function of Building and Fire Codes is to protect Society.  Well, that is supposed to be true !   Unfortunately, not all Codes/Regulations are adequate or up-to-date … as we have been observing here in these posts.

.

Just taking the Taipei 101 Tower as an example, I have very recently sent out three genuine, bona fide e-mail messages from our practice …

2011-12-08

Toshiba Elevator & Building Systems Corporation (TELC), Japan.

To Whom It May Concern …

Knowing that your organization was involved in the Taipei 101 Project … we have been examining your WebSite very carefully.  However, some important information was missing from there.

For our International Work … we would like to receive technical information on the Use of Elevators for Fire Evacuation in Buildings … which we understand is actually happening in the Taipei Tower, since it was completed in 2004.

The Universal Design approach must also be integrated into any New Elevators.

Can you help us ?

C.J. Walsh

[2012-01-10 ... No reply yet !]

.

2011-12-12

Mr. Thomas Z. Scarangello P.E. – Chairman & CEO, Thornton Tomasetti Structural Engineers, New York.

Dear Thomas,

Knowing that your organization was involved in the structural design of the Taipei 101 Tower, which was completed in 2004 … and in the on-going design of many other iconic tall, super-tall and mega-tall buildings around the world … we have been examining your Company Brochures and WebSite very carefully.  However, some essential information is missing.

As you are certainly aware … implementation of the 2005 & 2008 National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Recommendations on the Collapse of WTC Buildings 1, 2 & 7, in New York, on 11 September 2001 … is still proceeding at a snail’s pace, i.e. very slowly.  Today, many significant aspects of NIST’s Recommendations remain unimplemented.

For our International Work … we would like to understand how you have responded directly to the NIST Recommendations … and incorporated the necessary additional modifications into your current structural fire engineering designs.

Many thanks for your kind attention.  In anticipation of your prompt and detailed response …

C.J. Walsh

[2012-01-10 ... No reply yet !]

.

2011-12-14

Mr. C.Y. Lee & Mr. C.P. Wang, Principal Architects – C.Y. Lee & Partners Architects/Planners, Taiwan.

Dear Sirs,

Knowing that your architectural practice designed the Taipei 101 Tower, which was completed in 2004 … and, later, was also involved in the design of other tall and super-tall buildings in Taiwan and China … we have been examining your Company WebSite very carefully.  However, some essential information is missing.

As you are probably aware … implementation of the 2005 & 2008 U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Recommendations on the Collapse of WTC Buildings 1, 2 & 7, in New York City, on 11 September 2001 … is still proceeding at a snail’s pace, i.e. very slowly.  Today, many significant aspects of NIST’s Recommendations remain unimplemented.

For our International Work … we would like to understand how you have responded directly to the NIST Recommendations … and incorporated the necessary additional modifications into your current architectural designs.

Many thanks for your kind attention.  In anticipation of your prompt and detailed response …

C.J. Walsh

[2012-01-10 ... No reply yet !]

.

So … how many Clients, or Client Organizations, are aware that to properly protect their interests … even, a significant part of their interests … it is vitally necessary that Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives be developed which will have a much wider scope ?   The answer is … not many !

How many Architects, Structural Engineers, and Fire Engineers fully explain this to their Clients or Client Organizations ?

And how many Clients/Client Organizations either know that they should ask, or have the balls to ask … their Architect, Structural Engineer and Fire Engineer for this explanation … and furthermore, in the case of any High-Rise Building, Iconic Building, or Building having an Important Function or an Innovative Design … ask the same individuals for some solid reassurance that they have responded directly to the 2005 & 2008 NIST WTC Recommendations … and incorporated the necessary additional modifications into your current designs … whatever current Building and Fire Codes/Regulations do or do not say ??   A big dilemma !

.

A common and very risky dilemma for Building Designers, however, arises in the situation where the Project Developer, i.e. the Client/Client Organization … is the same as the Construction Organization.  The Project Design & Construction Team - as a whole - now has very little power or authority if a conflict arises over technical aspects of the design … or over construction costs.  An even bigger dilemma !!

Colour image showing the Kingdom Tower Project, in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) ... which will be completed in 2018. Design by Adrian Smith & Gordon Gill Architecture, USA. Click to enlarge.

.

  4.     The Next Series of Posts – 2008 NIST WTC Recommendations

In the new year of 2012 … I will examine the later NIST Recommendations which were a response to the Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse of World Trade Center Building No.7.

Colour image showing the Signature Tower Project, in Jakarta (Indonesia) ... which will be completed in 2016. Design by Smallwood Reynolds Stewart Stewart Architects & Planners, USA. Click to enlarge.

.

  5.     Please … Your Comments, Views & Opinions ?!?

The future of  Conventional Fire Engineering ended on the morning of Tuesday, 11 September 2001, in New York City … an engineering discipline constrained by a long heritage deeply embedded in, and manacled to, an outdated and inflexible prescriptive approach to Codes/Regulations and Standards … an approach which is irrational, ignores the ‘real’ needs of the ‘real’ people who use and/or occupy ‘real’ buildings … and, quite frankly, no longer makes any scientific sense !!

On the other hand … having confronted the harsh realities of 9/11 and the Mumbai ‘Hive’ Attacks, and digested the 2005 & 2008 NIST WTC Recommendations … Sustainable Fire Engineering … having a robust empirical basis, being ‘person-centred’, and positively promoting creativity … offers the International Fire Science and Engineering Community a confident journey forward into the future … on many diverse routes !

This IS the only appropriate response to the exciting architectural innovations and fire safety challenges of today’s Built Environment.

BUT … what do you think ?

.

.

END

2011-10-25:  NIST’s Recommendations on the 9-11 WTC Building Collapses … GROUP 1. Increased Structural Integrity – Recommendations 1, 2 & 3 (out of 30)

2011-11-18:  NIST WTC Recommendations 4-7 > Structural Fire Endurance … GROUP 2.  Enhanced Fire Endurance of Structures – Recommendations 4, 5, 6 & 7

2011-11-24:  NIST WTC Recommendations 8-11 > New Design of Structures … GROUP 3.  New Methods for Fire Resisting Design of Structures – Recommendations 8, 9, 10 & 11

2011-11-25:  NIST WTC Recommendations 12-15 > Improved Active Protection … GROUP 4.  Improved Active Fire Protection – Recommendations 12, 13, 14 & 15

.

2011-11-30:  SOME PRELIMINARY COMMENTS …

  1.     In the First Post of this Series, I wrote …

” As such a high level of performance is expected … indeed demanded … of a Sustainable Building … Sustainable Fire Engineering must be ‘reliability-based’ … in other words, it must have a rational, empirical and scientifically robust basis … “

Sustainable Fire Engineering must also be ‘person-centred’ … i.e. a design process (in whatever architectural or engineering discipline) which places ‘real’ people at the centre of creative endeavours and gives due consideration to their responsible needs, and their health, safety, welfare and security in the Human Environment.

In order to prolong, and if at all possible, significantly extend the Life Cycle of a Sustainable Building beyond 100 years … Fire Engineers must begin to feel at ease … and be comfortable … with the following mainstream Sustainable Design Concepts …

Flexibility:  The extent to which a building interior is designed, when new, to be capable of being easily modified at any later stage during the life cycle of that building – with minimal cost and user inconvenience – because of a person’s changing living or working needs.

Adaptability:  The extent to which a building, or a building component, is designed when new, or capable of being easily modified at any later stage, to meet the changing life and living needs of the broad range of potential users, who may or may not have activity limitations, or may develop a health condition during the life cycle of that building or component.

Accessibility of a Building:  Ease of independent approach, entry, egress (during normal ambient conditions), evacuation (in the event of an emergency) and/or use of a building and its services and facilities, by all of the building’s potential users - with an assurance of individual health, safety and welfare during the course of those activities.

  2.     Group 5 of the 2005 NIST WTC Recommendations is, by far, the most important … introducing some innovative concepts of ‘real’ evacuation … with nothing too startling.  Contrary to the impression given by NIST … these Recommendations are equally valid for complex building types and, in reality, for all but the most simple of low-rise buildings.  It is interesting to note, however, that when discussing fire behaviour or structural performance in fire, for example … the NIST texts are confident and direct.  Here, when dealing with ‘people’ issues … not so confident, prone to some rambling … and lacking clarity.

Shortly after the 2005 NIST Report (NCSTAR 1) was published, I stated the following on the SDI Corporate WebSite … at this FireOx International Page … http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/structdesfire.htm …

” In its treatment of ‘disability’ and ‘people with activity limitations’, the Report does not go far enough, and is seriously flawed.”

Let me explain why …

As you go scan down through NIST’s Recommendations 16-20, you will encounter 1 reference to ‘mobility impaired occupants’ and  2 references to the impersonal ‘mobility impaired’.  IF (and that is still a very big ‘if’, because there is still so much rabid resistance to this topic !) … a New Post-9/11 Evacuation Model, or Construct, Dealing with ‘Disability’ is being developed … all of the major impairment groupings (i.e. visual impairment, hearing impairment, physical function impairment, mental/cognitive impairment, and psychological impairment) must be added to the mix from the beginning.  In other words, our proper focus of attention must be ‘people with activity limitations’ … not just people with disabilities, but also frail older people (not all older people !), children under the age of 5 years, women in the later stages of pregnancy, people with a health condition, etc.

And … because of the social stigma still firmly attaching to ‘disability’ … many building occupants/users will not self-identify … not even if their lives depend on it !

Concentrating on one group only, i.e. people with mobility impairments, is simplistic and entirely inadequate … and we will all end up, in a few years time, having to graft on a consideration of the other impairment groups.

This is exactly what has already gone wrong with the development of Accessibility Design Guidance during the last 30 years … where ‘people with visual or hearing impairments’ received merely token attention … and ‘people with cognitive or psychological impairments’ received no attention at all !   And … we are now grappling with the challenge of having to graft on additional texts to try to re-balance International Design Guidance on Accessibility of the Built Environment.  Been there – done that – I have all of the t-shirts !!

People with Activity Limitations (English) / Personnes à Performances Réduites (French):  Those people, of all ages, who are unable to perform, independently and without aid, basic human activities or tasks – because of a health condition or physical/mental/cognitive/psychological impairment of a permanent or temporary nature.

The above Terms (in English and French) include …

• wheelchair users ;
• people who experience difficulty in walking, with or without a facilitation aid, e.g. stick, crutch, calliper or walking frame ;
• frail, older people ;
• the very young (people under the age of 5 years) ;
• people who suffer from arthritis, asthma, or a heart condition ;
• the visually and/or hearing impaired ;
• people who have a cognitive impairment disorder, including dementia, amnesia, brain injury, or delirium ;
• women in the later stages of pregnancy ;
• people impaired following the use of alcohol, other ‘social’ drugs e.g. cocaine and heroin, and some medicines ;
• people who suffer any partial or complete loss of language related abilities, i.e. aphasia ;
• people impaired following exposure to environmental pollution and/or other irresponsible human activities, e.g. war and terrorism ;

and …

• people who experience a panic attack in a fire situation or other emergency ;
• people, including firefighters, who suffer incapacitation as a result of exposure, during a fire, to poisonous or toxic substances, and/or elevated  temperatures.

  3.     So … what provision should be made for ‘people with activity limitations’ in typical Fire Engineering Design Projects ?

Equivalent to the concept of Maximum Credible Fire Scenario, which has already been discussed in this Series … at FireOx International, some years ago, we developed the concept of …

Maximum Credible User Scenario

Representing building user conditions which are also severe but reasonable to anticipate …

a)   10% of People Using the Building (occupants, visitors and other users) have an Impairment (visual or hearing, physical function, mental or cognitive, psychological, with some impairments not being identifiable) ;

[ This performance indicator appears in ISO FDIS 21542: 'Building Construction - Accessibility & Usability of the Built Environment', which will soon be published.]

b)   The Number of People Using a Building increases, on occasions which cannot be specified, to 120% of designed/calculated maximum building capacity.

[ Generally ... the fire safety related texts contained in ISO 21542 are based on the 2005 & 2008 NIST WTC Recommendations.]

  4.     With regard to Recommendation 17 below, and NIST’s reference to the widths of evacuation staircases and door openings, etc … fire codes and regulations, fire authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ’s), and even the fire services themselves … still have a crazy mixed-up approach to defining the width of these building features … an approach which I am not even going to attempt to repeat !   Forget it !!

Without Exception … all understandings of Evacuation Route Width, Evacuation Staircase Width and Evacuation Door Opening Width … must be harmonized with the following definitions of Unobstructed Width …

Unobstructed Width – General

Free, unobstructed space – clear of all obstacles below a height of 2.1 metres above finished floor level – necessary for passage along a circulation route, or other route component, e.g. a staircase.

[ For example ... the Unobstructed Width of a Staircase is the clear dimension from the edge of one handrail to the edge of the opposite handrail ... and there is always a continuous handrail on each side of an evacuation staircase ! ]

Unobstructed Width – Door Opening

Free, unobstructed space – clear of all obstacles below a height of 2.0 metres above finished floor level – necessary for passage through a door opening, measured when the door leaf is opened to an angle of 90°, or when a sliding or folding door leaf is opened to its fullest extent.

[ For example ... the Unobstructed Width of a Door Opening is the dimension from the edge of the door leaf (when open at an angle of 90°) to the nearest edge of the door frame.]

This FireOx International Page on the SDI Corporate WebSite provides more guidance … http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/appendixd.htm

  5.     With regard to Recommendation 20 below, and NIST’s reference to allowing “all occupants an equal opportunity for evacuation” … this is not just a ‘nice idea’, or an ‘idealistic notion’ … this is now a Human and Social Right which is backed up and supported by International Law !   And … it is no longer acceptable for the Fire Science and Engineering Community to continue its stubborn resistance in the face of this fact !!

For the benefit of my fire engineering colleagues … I will, once again here, reproduce the most relevant extracts from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities …

UN CRPD  Preamble Paragraph (g)

Emphasizing the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development, …

UN CRPD  Article 9 – Accessibility

1.  To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.  These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

(a)  Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces ;

(b)  Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

2.  States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:

(a)  To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public ;

(b)  To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities ;

(c)  To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities ;

(d)  To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms ;

(e)  To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public ;

(f)  To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information ;

(g)  To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet ;

(h)  To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

UN CRPD  Article 11 – Situations of Risk & Humanitarian Emergencies

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

[ Note:  An outbreak of fire in a building is a situation of serious risk for all vulnerable building occupants/users.]

.

At the time of writing, 153 Countries had signed the UN CRPD … while 106 Countries have ratified the Convention and are, therefore, the ‘State Parties’ referred to above.

These are just a few of the State Parties to the UN CRPD …

• Argentina  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2008-09-02)
• Australia  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2008-07-17)
• Brazil  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2008-08-01)
• Canada  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2010-03-11)
• China  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2008-08-01)
• Cuba  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2007-09-06)
• European Union  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2010-12-23)
• India  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2007-10-01)
• Malaysia  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2010-07-19)
• Mexico  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2007-12-17)
• Philippines  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2008-04-15)
• South Africa  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2007-11-30)
• Turkey  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2009-09-28)
• United Arab Emirates  (ratified the UN CRPD, 2010-03-19)

I wonder how implementation is proceeding in these countries !?!

.

2005 NIST WTC RECOMMENDATIONS

GROUP 5.  Improved Building Evacuation

Building evacuation should be improved to include system designs that facilitate safe and rapid egress, methods for ensuring clear and timely emergency communications to occupants, better occupant preparedness regarding their roles and duties for evacuation during emergencies, and incorporation of appropriate egress technologies.*

[ * F-36  This effort should include standards and guidelines for the development and evaluation of emergency evacuation plans, including best practices for both partial and full evacuation, and the development of contingency plans that account for expected conditions that may require adaptation, including the compromise of all or part of an egress path before or during evacuation, or conditions such as widespread power failure, earthquake, or security threat that restrict egress from the building.  Evacuation planning should include the process from initial notification of the need to evacuate up to the point when occupants arrive at a place where their safety is ensured.  These standards and guidelines should be suitable for assessing the adequacy of evacuation plans submitted for approval, and should require occupant training through the conduct of regular drills.]

NIST WTC Recommendation 16.

NIST recommends that public agencies, non-profit organizations concerned with building and fire safety, and building owners and managers develop and carry out public education and training campaigns, jointly and on a nationwide scale, to improve building occupants’ preparedness for evacuation in case of building emergencies.  This effort should include better training and self-preparation of occupants, an effectively implemented system of floor wardens and building safety personnel, and needed improvements to standards.  Occupant preparedness should include:

a.     Improved training and drills for building occupants to ensure that they know evacuation procedures for a variety of emergency scenarios (e.g. including evacuation and shelter in place), are familiar with the egress route, and are sufficiently aware of what is necessary if evacuation is required with minimal notice (e.g. footwear consistent with the distance to be travelled, a flashlight/glow stick for pathway illumination, and dust masks).

b.     Building owners and managers should educate tenants on the life safety systems present in their building(s), provide training materials explaining egress routes and stairwell and elevator information, and develop educational programmes explaining the most appropriate responses in emergency situations.  It is further recommended that the owners and managers of office buildings implement the necessary systems for collecting and storing the training history of each building occupant.

c.     Improved training and drills that routinely inform building occupants that roof rescue is not (or is) presently feasible as a standard evacuation option, that they should evacuate down the stairs in any full-building evacuation unless explicitly instructed otherwise by on-site incident commanders, and that elevators can be used if they are still in service and haven’t been recalled or stopped.

d.     Improved codes, laws, and regulations that do not restrict or impede building occupants during evacuation drills from familiarizing themselves with the detailed layout of alternative egress routes for a full building evacuation.*

[ * F-37  New York City Local Law 5 prohibits requiring occupants to practice stairwell evacuation during drills.]

Affected Standard:  ICC/ANSI A117-1.  Model Building and Fire Codes:  The standard should be adopted in model building and fire codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.  Affected Organizations:  NFPA, NIBS, NCSBCS, BOMA, and CTBUH.

NIST WTC Recommendation 17.

NIST recommends that tall buildings be designed to accommodate timely full building evacuation of occupants when required in building-specific or large-scale emergencies such as widespread power outages, major earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes without sufficient advance warning, fires, explosions, and terrorist attack.  Building size, population, function, and iconic status should be taken into account in designing the egress system.  Stairwell capacity and stair discharge door opening width* should be adequate to accommodate contraflow due to emergency access by responders.

[ * F-38  Egress capacity should be based on an all-hazards approach that considers the number and width of stairs (and door openings) as well as the possible use of scissor stairs credited as a single stair.]

a.     Improved egress analysis models, design methodology, and supporting data should be developed to achieve a target evacuation performance (e.g. time for full building evacuation*) for the design building population by considering the building and egress system designs, and human factors such as occupant size, mobility status, stairwell tenability conditions, visibility, and congestion.

[ * F-39  Use of egress models is required to estimate the egress capacity for a range of different evacuation strategies, including full building evacuation.  NIST found that the average surviving occupant in the WTC towers descended stairwells at about half the slowest speed previously measured for non-emergency evacuations.]

b.     To the degree possible, mobility impaired occupants should be provided a means for self-evacuation in the event of a building emergency.  Current strategies (and law) generally require the mobility impaired to shelter in place.  New procedures, which provide redundancy in the event that the floor warden system or co-worker assistance (i.e. a buddy system) fails, should consider full building evacuation, and may include use of fire-protected and structurally hardened elevators,* motorized evacuation technology (e.g. a battery-operated evacuation chair), and/or dedicated communication technologies for the mobility impaired.

[ * F-40  Elevators should be explicitly designed to provide protection against large, but conventional, building fires.  Fire-protected elevators also should be structurally hardened to withstand the range of foreseeable building-specific or large-scale emergencies.  While progress has been made in developing the requirements and technologies for fire-protected elevators, similar criteria and designs for structurally hardened elevators remain to be developed.]

c.     If protected/hardened elevators are provided for emergency responders but become unusable during an emergency, due to a malfunction or a conventional threat whose magnitude exceeds the magnitude considered in design, sufficient stairwell capacity should be provided to ensure timely emergency responder access to buildings that are undergoing full evacuation.  Such capacity could be provided either via dedicated stairways for fire service use or by building sufficient stairway capacity (i.e. number and width of stairways and/or use of scissor stairs credited as a single stair) to accommodate the evacuation of building occupants while allowing access to emergency responders with minimal hindrance from occupant contraflow.

d.     The egress allowance in assembly use spaces should be limited in state and local laws and regulations to no more than a doubling of the stairway capacity for the provision of a horizontal exit on a floor, as is the case now in the national model codes.*  The use of a horizontal exit creates an area of refuge with a 2 hour fire rated separation, at least one stair on each side, and sufficient space for the expected occupant load.

[ * F-41  The New York City Building Code permits a doubling of allowed stair capacity when one area of refuge is provided on a floor, and a tripling of stair capacity for two or more areas of refuge on a floor.  In the world after 11 September 2001, it is difficult to predict: (1) if, and for how long, occupants will be willing to wait in a refuge area before entering an egress stairway; and (2) what the impact would be of such a large group of people moving down the stairs on the orderly evacuation of lower floors.]

Affected Standards:  NFPA 101, ASME A 17.  Model Building and Fire Codes:  The standards should be adopted in model building and fire codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.

NIST WTC Recommendation 18.

NIST recommends that egress systems be designed:  (1) to maximize remoteness of egress components (i.e. stairs, elevators, exits) without negatively impacting on average travel distances;  (2) to maintain their functional integrity and survivability under foreseeable building-specific or large-scale emergencies;  and (3) with consistent layouts, standard signage, and guidance so that systems become intuitive and obvious to building occupants during evacuations.

a.     Within a safety-based design hierarchy that should be developed, highest priority should be assigned to maintain the functional integrity, survivability, and remoteness of egress components and active fire protection systems (sprinklers, standpipes, associated water supply, fire alarms, and smoke management systems).  The design hierarchy should consider the many systems (e.g. stairs, elevators, active fire protection, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and structural) and system components, as well as functional integrity, tenant access, emergency responder access, building configuration, security, and structural design.

b.     The design, functional integrity, and survivability of the egress and other life safety systems (e.g. stairwell and elevator shafts, and active fire protection systems) should be enhanced by considering accidental structural loads such as those induced by overpressures (e.g. gas explosions), impacts, or major hurricanes and earthquakes, in addition to fire separation requirements.  In selected buildings, structural loads due to other risks such as those due to terrorism may need to be considered.  While NIST does not believe that buildings should be designed for aircraft impact, as the last line of defence for life safety, the stairwells and elevator shafts individually, or the core if these egress components are contained within the core, should have adequate structural integrity to withstand accidental structural loads and anticipated risks.

c.     Stairwell remoteness requirements should be met by a physical separation of the stairwells that provide a barrier to both fire and accidental structural loads.  Maximizing stairwell remoteness, without negatively impacting on average travel distances, would allow a stairwell to maintain its structural integrity independent of any other stairwell that is subject to accidental loads, even if the stairwells are located within the same structural barrier such as the core.  The current ‘walking path’ measurement allows stairwells to be physically next to each other, separated only by a fire barrier.  Reducing the clustering of stairways that also contain standpipe water systems provides the fire service with increased options for formulating firefighting strategies.  This should not preclude the use of scissor stairs* as a means of increasing stair capacity – provided the scissor stair is only credited as a single stair.

[ * F-42  Two separate stairways within the same enclosure and separated by a fire rated partition.]

d.     Egress systems should have consistent layouts with standard signage and guidance so that the systems become intuitive and obvious to all building occupants, including visitors, during evacuations.  Particular consideration should be given to unexpected deviations in the stairwells (e.g. floors with transfer hallways).

Affected Standard:  NFPA 101.  Model Building and Fire Codes:  The standard should be adopted in model building and fire codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.

NIST WTC Recommendation 19.

NIST recommends that building owners, managers, and emergency responders develop a joint plan and take steps to ensure that accurate emergency information is communicated in a timely manner to enhance the situational awareness of building occupants and emergency responders affected by an event.  This should be accomplished through better co-ordination of information among different emergency responder groups, efficient sharing of that information among building occupants and emergency responders, more robust design of emergency public address systems, improved emergency responder communication systems, and use of the Emergency Broadcast System (now known as the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System) and Community Emergency Alert Networks.

a.     Situational awareness of building occupants and emergency responders in the form of information and event knowledge should be improved through better co-ordination of such information among emergency responder groups (9-1-1 dispatch, fire department or police department dispatch, emergency management dispatch, site security, and appropriate federal agencies), efficient sharing and communication of information between building occupants and emergency responders, and improved emergency responder communication systems (i.e. including effective communication within steel and reinforced concrete buildings, capacity commensurate with the scale of operations, and interoperability among different communication systems.

b.     The emergency communications systems in buildings should be designed with sufficient robustness and redundancy to continue providing public address announcements or instructions in foreseeable building-specific or large-scale emergencies, including widespread power outage, major earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, and accidental explosions.  Consideration should be given to placement of building announcement speakers in stairways in addition to other standard locations.

c.     The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) should be activated and used, especially during large-scale emergencies, as a means to rapidly and widely communicate information to building occupants and emergency responders to enhance their situational awareness and assist with evacuation.

d.     Local jurisdictions (cities and counties or boroughs) should seriously consider establishing a Community Emergency Alert Network (CEAN), within the framework of IPAWS, and make it available to the citizens and emergency responders of their jurisdictions to enhance situational awareness in emergencies.*  The network should deliver important emergency alerts, information and real time updates to all electronic communication systems or devices registered with the CEAN.  These devices may include e-mail accounts, cell/mobile phones, text pagers, satellite phones, and wireless PDA’s.

[ * F-43  Types of emergency communications could include life safety information, severe weather warnings, disaster notifications (including information on terrorist attacks), directions for self-protection, locations of nearest available shelters, precautionary evacuation information, identification of available evacuation routes, and accidents or obstructions associated with roadways and utilities.]

Affected Standard:  NFPA 101, and/or a new standard.  Model Building and Fire Codes:  The standard should be adopted in model building and fire codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard to the extent it is within the scope of building and fire codes.

NIST WTC Recommendation 20.

NIST recommends that the full range of current and next generation evacuation technologies should be evaluated for future use, including protected/hardened elevators, exterior escape devices, and stairwell descent devices, which may allow all occupants an equal opportunity for evacuation and facilitate emergency response access.  Affected Standards:  NFPA 101, ASME A 17, ASTM E 06, ANSI A117.1.  Model Building and Fire Codes:  The standards should be adopted in model building and fire codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.

.

.

END

On Thursday evening, 1st December 2011, at 19.00 hrs … in the Dublin Institute of Technology … I will present an IABSE-Ireland Sponsored Lecture on the subject: ‘Sustainable Fire Engineering IS THE FUTURE !’.

This Presentation has been in continuous development across a snaking international path … Dubayy (UAE) in 2008 … Lund (Sweden) and Bengaluru (India) in 2009 … Dilli (India), Zurich (Switzerland) and Dublin (Ireland) in 2010 … Paris (France), the IFE’s International Fire Conference in Cardiff (Wales) and the ASFP-Ireland Fire Seminar in 2011 … and on 1 December next, in Dublin, I will be introducing some tough new realities for fire engineering generally … not just in Ireland …

Colour photograph showing the impact of witnessing the 9-11 WTC Incident in New York. Sustainable Fire Engineering must be 'reliability-based' & 'person-centred'. But ... do building designers, including fire engineers, actually understand that the people who use their buildings are 'individuals' ... each having a different range of abilities ? Photograph by Marty Lederhandler/AP. Click to enlarge.

.

IABSE Irish National Group Sponsored Lecture

Dublin Institute of Technology, Bolton Street – Michael O’Donnell Room (259)

Thursday, 1 December 2011 @ 19.00 hrs / 7.00 p.m.

CJ Walsh: Sustainable Fire Engineering IS THE FUTURE !  (Lecture Flyer, PDF File, 259 kb)

.

The aim of Sustainable Fire Engineering is to realize a safe and sustainable built environment.

Responding ethically, in built and/or wrought form, to the still evolving concept of sustainable human and social development … a principal objective of Sustainable Fire Engineering is to design for maximum credible fire and user scenarios … in order to maintain a proper and satisfactory level of fire safety and protection over the full life cycle of, for example, a building … and for a Sustainable Building, that life cycle is 100 years minimum.

Sustainable Fire Engineering must, therefore, be ‘reliability-based’ & ‘person-centred’.

This presentation will examine the authentic language and meaning of sustainability … and will then track how this impacts on the professional practice of fire engineering.  Special mention will be made of Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse.

.

See you all there !   And I will be looking forward to a lot of challenging feedback on the night !!

.

.

END

In this post (and a series of future posts) … I find it most necessary that the 2005 & 2008 NIST Recommendations now be presented for everyone to read.  Yes, some of Recommendations apply specifically to Tall and Very Tall Buildings … and Building Designers in India, China, Brazil, Russia & South Africa (BRICS), the Arab Gulf Region, Europe and North America, etc., should be fully aware of their contents.

BUT … I am also strongly convinced … precisely because I am an Architect, a Fire Engineer and a Technical Controller … that most of the NIST Recommendations apply to ALL Buildings … so catastrophic was the failure exposed on that fateful day (11 September 2001) … in all of our common design and construction practices … and our operation, maintenance and emergency response procedures !

.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

  1.     Extract from Paragraph #9.2, Chapter 9, NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers – Report Reference NIST NCSTAR 1 (2005) …

• NIST believes  that these Recommendations are both realistic and achievable within a reasonable period of time, and that their implementation would make buildings safer for occupants and emergency responders in future emergencies.
• NIST strongly urges  that immediate and serious consideration be given to these Recommendations by the building and fire safety communities – especially designers, owners, developers, codes and standards development organizations, regulators, fire safety professionals, and emergency responders.
• NIST also strongly urges  building owners and public officials to:  (i) evaluate the safety implications of these Recommendations for their existing inventory of buildings;  and (ii) take the steps necessary to mitigate any unwarranted risks without waiting for changes to occur in codes, standards, and practices.

  2.     At the time of writing … it is important to point out that although they are related Structural Concepts … and there is still, to this day, a lot of confusion about these concepts in the USA … it is important to clearly distinguish between …

Disproportionate Damage

The failure of a building’s structural system  (i) remote from the scene of an isolated overloading action;  and (ii) to an extent which is not in reasonable proportion to that action.

Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse

The sequential growth and intensification of distortion, displacement and failure of elements of construction in a building – during a fire and the ‘cooling phase’ afterwards – which, if unchecked, will result in disproportionate damage, and may lead to total building collapse.

  3.     Recommendation 2, below, would certainly need to be understood and implemented within today’s additional design constraints of Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience to Severe Weather Events.  Therefore … Design Wind Speeds must be increased, accordingly, for ALL Buildings.

  4.     As such a high level of performance is expected … indeed demanded … of a Sustainable Building … Sustainable Fire Engineering must be ‘reliability-based’.  In other words, it must have a rational, empirical and scientifically robust basis … unlike conventional fire engineering, which is yet aimlessly wandering around in pre-historic caves !

  5.     Finally … there is no use trying to hide the fact that progress on implementing the NIST Recommendations, within the USA, has been lamentably slow.  Outside that jurisdiction, the response has ranged from mild interest, to complete apathy, and even to vehement antipathy.  The implications arising from implementation are much too hard to digest … for long established fire safety professionals and researchers who are unswervingly committed to the flawed and out-of-date practices and procedures of conventional fire engineering and, especially, for vested interests !

However … is it either in society’s interest, or in the interests of our clients/client organizations … that, to give you a simple example which is relevant close to home, British Standard 9999 (published on 31 October 2008): ‘Code of Practice for Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings’ takes absolutely no account of any of the NIST Recommendations ?   As far as the British Standards Institution is concerned … 9-11 never happened … which I think is an inexcusable and unforgivable technical oversight !

For this reason, the General Public in ALL of our societies and Clients/Client Organizations in ALL countries should also be fully aware of the contents of these Recommendations …

.

Colour photograph showing the two World Trade Center Towers immediately after the impact of the second plane. At a fundamental level, this was a very serious 'real' fire incident ... which was extensively, and very thoroughly, investigated by the U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) ... and resulted in the important 2005 & 2008 NIST Recommendations. Click to enlarge.

.

2005 NIST WTC RECOMMENDATIONS

GROUP 1.   Increased Structural Integrity

The standards for estimating the load effects of potential hazards (e.g. progressive collapse, wind) and the design of structural systems to mitigate the effects of those hazards should be improved to enhance structural integrity.

NIST WTC Recommendation 1.

NIST recommends that:  (1) progressive collapse be prevented in buildings through the development and nationwide adoption of consensus standards and code provisions, along with the tools and guidelines needed for their use in practice;  and (2) a standard methodology be developed – supported by analytical design tools and practical design guidance – to reliably predict the potential for complex failures in structural systems subjected to multiple hazards.

a.   Progressive collapse* should be prevented in buildings.

[ * F-19  Progressive collapse (or disproportionate damage) occurs when an initial local failure spreads from structural element to structural element resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it.]

The primary structural systems should provide alternate paths for carrying loads in case certain components fail (e.g. transfer girders or columns).  This is especially important in buildings where structural components (e.g. columns, girders) support unusually large floor areas.*

[ * F-20  While the WTC towers eventually collapsed, they had the capacity to redistribute loads from impact and fire damaged structural components and sub-systems to undamaged components and sub-systems.  However, the core columns in the WTC towers lacked sufficient redundant (alternative) paths for carrying gravity loads.]

Progressive collapse is addressed only in a very limited way in practice and by codes and standards.  For example, the initiating event in design to prevent progressive collapse may be removal of one or two columns at the bottom of the structure.  Initiating events at multiple locations within the structure, or involving other key components and sub-systems, should be analyzed commensurate with the risks considered in the design.  The effectiveness of mitigation approaches involving new system and sub-system design concepts should be evaluated with conventional approaches based on indirect design (continuity, strength and ductility of connections), direct design (local hardening), and redundant (alternate) load paths.  The capability to prevent progressive collapse due to abnormal loads should include:  (i) comprehensive design rules and practice guides;  (ii) evaluation criteria, methodology, and tools for assessing the vulnerability of structures to progressive collapse;  (iii) performance-based criteria for abnormal loads and load combinations;  (iv) analytical tools to predict potential collapse mechanisms;  and (v) computer models and analysis procedures for use in routine design practice.  The federal government should co-ordinate the existing programmes that address this need:  those in the Department of Defence;  the General Services Administration;  the Defence Threat Reduction Agency;  and NIST.  Affected Standards:  ASCE-7, AISC Specifications, and ACI 318.  These standards and other relevant committees should draw on expertise from ASCE/SFPE 29 for issues concerning progressive collapse under fire conditions.  Model Building Codes:  The consensus standards should be adopted in model building codes (i.e. the International Building Code and NFPA 5000) by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.  State and local jurisdictions should adopt and enforce the improved model building codes and national standards based on all 30 WTC Recommendations (2005).  The codes and standards may vary from the WTC Recommendations, but satisfy their intent.

b.   A robust, integrated predictive capability should be developed, validated, and maintained to routinely assess the vulnerability of whole structures to the effects of credible hazards.  This capability to evaluate the performance and reserve capacity of structures does not exist and is a significant cause for concern.  This capability would also assist in investigations of building failure – as demonstrated by the analyses of the WTC building collapses carried out in this Investigation.  The failure analysis capability should include all possible complex failure phenomena that may occur under multiple hazards (e.g. bomb blasts, fires, impacts, gas explosions, earthquakes, and hurricane winds), experimentally validated models, and robust tools for routine analysis to predict such failures and their consequences.  This capability should be developed via a co-ordinated effort involving federal, private sector, and academic research organizations in close partnership with practicing engineers.

NIST WTC Recommendation 2.

NIST recommends that nationally accepted performance standards be developed for:  (1) conducting wind tunnel testing of prototype structures based on sound technical methods that result in repeatable and reproducible results among testing laboratories;  and (2) estimating wind loads and their effects on tall buildings for use in design, based on wind tunnel testing data and directional wind speed data.  Wind loads specified in current prescriptive codes may not be appropriate for the design of very tall buildings since they do not account for building-specific aerodynamic effects.  Further, a review of wind load estimates for the WTC towers indicated differences by as much as 40 % from wind tunnel studies conducted in 2002 by two independent commercial laboratories.  Major sources of differences in estimation methods currently used in practice occur in the selection of design wind speeds and directionality, the nature of hurricane wind profiles, the estimation of ‘component’ wind effects by integrating wind tunnel data with wind speed and direction information, and the estimation of ‘resultant’ wind effects using load combination methods.  Wind loads were a major factor in the design of the WTC tower structures and were relevant to evaluating the baseline capacity of the structures to withstand abnormal events such as major fires or impact damage.  Yet, there is lack of consensus on how to evaluate and estimate winds and their load effects on buildings.

a.   Nationally accepted standards should be developed and implemented for conducting wind tunnel tests, estimating site-specific wind speed and directionality based on available data, and estimating wind loads associated with specific design probabilities from wind tunnel test results and directional wind speed data.

b.   Nationally accepted standards should be developed for estimating wind loads in the design of tall buildings.  The development of performance standards for estimating wind loads should consider:  (1) appropriate load combinations and load factors, including performance criteria for static and dynamic behaviour, based on both ultimate and serviceability limit states;  and (2) validation of wind load provisions in prescriptive design standards for tall buildings, given the universally acknowledged use of wind tunnel testing and associated performance criteria.  Limitations to the use of prescriptive wind load provisions should be clearly identified in codes and standards.

The standards development work can begin immediately to address many of the above needs.  The results of those efforts should be adopted in practice as soon as they become available.  The research that will be required to address the remaining needs also should begin immediately and results should be made available for standards development and use in practice.  Affected National Standard:  ASCE-7.  Model Building Codes:  The standard should be adopted in model building codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.

NIST WTC Recommendation 3.

NIST recommends that an appropriate criterion be developed and implemented to enhance the performance of tall buildings by limiting how much they sway under lateral load design conditions (e.g. winds and earthquakes).  The stability and safety of tall buildings depend upon, among other factors, the magnitude of building sway or deflection, which tends to increase with building height.  Conventional strength-based methods, such as those used in the design of the WTC towers, do not limit deflections.  The deflection limit state criterion, which is proposed here is in addition to the stress limit state and serviceability requirement;  it should be adopted either to complement the safety provided by conventional strength-based design or independently as an alternate deflection-based approach to the design of tall buildings for life safety.  The recommended deflection limit state criterion is independent of the criterion used to ensure occupant comfort, which is met in current practice by limiting accelerations (e.g. in the 15 to 20 milli-g range). Lateral deflections, which already are limited in the design of tall buildings to control damage in earthquake-prone regions, should also be limited in non-seismic areas.*

[ * F-22  Analysis of baseline performance under the original design wind loads indicated that the WTC towers would need to have been between 50 % and 90 % stiffer to achieve a typical drift ratio used in current practice for non-seismic regions, though not required by building codes.  Limiting drift would have required increasing exterior column areas in lower stories and/or significant additional damping.]

Affected National standards:  ASCE-7, AISC Specifications, and ACI 318.  Model Building Codes:  The standard should be adopted in model building codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.

.

.

END

Has anybody’s interests been protected by what has happened at the ‘Priory Hall’ Apartment Development, in Donaghmede, Dublin 13 ?   NO.

Now that the buildings there have been completed … will it be possible to effectively repair the most serious fire protection, sound transmission and energy conservation problems with the buildings ??   NO.

At the heart of these problems lie Fundamental Design and Construction Flaws … because, back in the 1990′s and early 2000′s, indigenous builders of simple two storey semi-detached houses suddenly became ‘developers’ of apartment complexes … and these were very different building animals altogether, requiring a degree of technical competence well beyond their reach.  And, of course, during the actual construction process everything had to be finished ‘yesterday’, and as cheaply as possible (a policy of cheap product substitution was the un-stated national norm !).  In fact, so many corners were cut on Irish Building Sites, at the time, that we should refer to almost the entire construction output from this era as: The Celtic Tiger Round Towers !

And guess who is going to carry out the Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works at ‘Priory Hall’ ?   The very same Construction Organization which created the mess in the first place !!   Can you believe it ??

Furthermore … once these Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works are eventually finished … the performance of the Fire Protection Measures in ‘Priory Hall’ will still be compromised, because you can only do so much, physically, when a building is completed.  BUT … it would be possible to achieve a Proper Level of Fire Safety in ‘Priory Hall’ … by installing a Fire Suppression System (sprinklers or mist) throughout the development.  That’s what it will take !!

.

Tremendous fire damage was caused to the local environment in Buncefield ... but SOCIETY can no longer suffer this scale of damage ... and these Criminal Human Acts! Click to enlarge.

.

WHO IS PROTECTING SOCIETY ?

So extensive is the damage caused by fire … throughout Europe … that not all of the Direct and Indirect Fire Losses have yet been identified.

Pause, to consider this definition …

Environmental Impact:  Any effect caused by a given activity on the environment, including human health, safety and welfare, flora, fauna, soil, air, water, and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, climate, landscape and historical monuments or other physical structures, or the interactions among these factors; it also includes effects on accessibility, cultural heritage or socio-economic conditions resulting from alterations to those factors.

And this means, of course, that our current Fire Loss Data and Statistics are unreliable.

.

It is not well known, or widely publicised, that the Fire Safety Objectives of Building Regulations are limited to protecting building occupants.  The Objectives are only concerned with protecting property, insofar as it is relevant to the protection of those building occupants.

Can you image the look of astonishment on the face of a Managing Director, after his/her factory has been entirely destroyed by a fire, when told by a fire consultant …

” We complied with Part B of the Building Regulations, and here is your Fire Safety Certificate to prove it”  ??

.

What should be happening instead ?

     1.  Fire Engineering Design & Practice cannot … and must not … be concerned merely with the ‘cost-effective’ compliance with minimal (which they most certainly are !) Fire Safety Objectives mandated by Building Legislation.

     2.  To properly protect the interests of Society and Clients/Client Organizations … Fire Engineering Design & Practice must also take into account: Safety at Work Legislation; Rights, Equality & Anti-Discrimination Legislation; Environmental Impact Legislation; Public Procurement Legislation; Product Liability Legislation; etc., etc.

     3.  There is an evolving realization in Ethical Fire Engineering Design & Practice, however, that there is still a significant gap to be bridged.  There is no legislation (effective, or otherwise) yet in place, anywhere, which deals with such issues as …

• Resistance to Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse – as very strongly recommended in the 2005 & 2008 U.S. NIST Final Reports on the 9-11 World Trade Center Building 1, 2 & 7 Collapses ;
• Protection of Vulnerable Building Users in ‘Situations of Risk’ – as required, for example, by Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) ;
• Safety of Firefighters/Rescue Teams – as specified in Basic Requirement for Construction Works No.2, in Annex I of European Union Construction Product Regulation 305/2011 ;
• Adaptation to Climate Change and Severe Weather Events – the Developed World Economies appear to have no interest, whatsoever, in these issues ;
• Sustainable Human & Social Development !

     4.  We must clearly distinguish, therefore, between the Fire Safety Objectives of Building Regulations/Codes … and Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives.  This difference must be fully understood by the Fire Engineer himself/herself … and then, in all circumstances, properly explained to the Client/Client Organization.

.

In designing a Building for conditions of fire, and its aftermath … which may take place at any time during the Life Cycle of that Building … Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives should cover the following spectrum of concerns … in order to properly protect the interests of Society and our Clients/Client Organizations …

  -   Protection of the Health & Safety of All Building Users … including People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), visitors to the building who may be unfamiliar with its layout, and contractors or product/service suppliers temporarily engaged in work or business transactions on the premises ;

  -   Protection of Property … including the building, its contents, and adjoining or adjacent properties … from loss or damage ;

  -   Protection of the Health & Safety of Firefighters, Rescue Teams & Other Emergency First Response Personnel ;

  -   Facility, Ease & Efficient Cost of Carrying Out Effective Reconstruction, Refurbishment or Repair Works after a Fire ;

  -   Sustainability of the Human Environment (social, built, virtual, economic, …) – including Fitness for Intended Use and Life Cycle Costing of fire engineering related products, components, systems, etc., fixed, installed or incorporated in the building ;

  -   Protection of the Natural Environment from Harm, i.e. Adverse Impacts.

.

.

CRIMINAL RESPONSE TO 1981 DUBLIN STARDUST TRAGEDY !

As I write … a stampede has just commenced by the various Construction-Related Professional Institutes and Organizations … to demand closer independent monitoring of what is happening on Irish Building Sites.  Far too little … and definitely, far too late !   Back in the early 1990′s, everybody stood by … and co-operated with the installation of an entirely ineffective and dysfunctional system of National Building Control in Ireland … which, let us not forget, survives intact to this day … while, at the same time, the strong long-established and well-resourced Building Control Sections in Dublin and Cork were being quietly dismantled.

The Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government, Mr. Phil Hogan T.D. … is also chirping in from his ivory tower !

Crocodile Tears !!

.

Take a Fire Safety Certificate for a Building, for example …

With or Without Conditions … this document confirms that the Local Building Control/Fire Authority is satisfied that the Design Documentation for that building shows proper compliance with the Legal Requirements of Part B of the Irish Building Regulations.

Focus in on the relevant wording of a Fire Safety Certificate, which is as follows …

‘ … hereby certify that the works or building to which the application relates, will, if constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted, comply with the requirements of Part B of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations 1997 to 2008.’

Fire Safety Related Inspections of Construction Projects are not carried out by Competent Local Authority Personnel, or by Competent Independent Technical Controllers.  Therefore … a Fire Safety Certificate cannot give, and is not intended to give, any indication with regard to Fire Safety in the Completed Building.  The ‘Fire’ Establishment in Ireland knows full well that this is the situation !

Is this any sort of a reasonable, caring or competent response to the 1981 Stardust Discotheque Fire Tragedy in Dublin ??

.

.

END

Applying the Recommendations contained in the 2005 & 2008 National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST – USA) Reports on the 9-11 WTC Buildings 1, 2 & 7 Collapses to the everyday practice of Architecture and Fire Engineering has been a central part of our work for many years.  Long discussions on this subject have taken place within CIB (International Council for Building Research) Working Commission 14: ‘Fire Safety’ … and I also chair Commission 14′s Research Working Group IV on ‘Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse’.

My particular interest in Disproportionate Damage and Progressive Collapse reaches back as far as the late 1980′s !

So I was intrigued, amused … and at the same time, highly concerned … to read the following Letter to the Editor of the Irish Times Newspaper, on Saturday 10 September 2011 …

Recalling 9/11

Sir, – One of the most important factors in the tragedy of 9/11, and one that has received scant attention, was the mode of failure of the towers.

They were struck high up on their structures and failed via progressive collapse.  Had they been designed this side of the Atlantic, they would not have collapsed.  These were flimsy structures. -

Yours, etc,

Jim Ryan, Chartered Structural Engineer,

Waterfall, Cork.

.

JIM …  If the WTC Towers (which were not flimsy structures !) had been designed on this side of the Atlantic … they would have collapsed.

Furthermore …  If the Towers had only been completed last week in the USA, Ireland, England & Wales, India or China … they would still collapse, if a similar event were to occur next year.

To be crystal clear …  What we witnessed, on Tuesday 11 September 2001, was a Collapse Level Event (CLE) which exposed, very harshly and cruelly, a catastrophic failure in all of our common Design and Construction Practices and Procedures used in/by/as …

• Architectural Design | (Ambient) Structural Engineering | Fire Engineering ;
• Building Management Systems ;
• Emergency Responders | Firefighters | Rescue Teams ;
• Technical Control Organizations Having Authority (AHJ’s) or Jurisdiction ;
• Fire Safety Objectives in Building Legislation, Codes and Standards.

To the average ‘person in the street’ …  Whether he/she lives in Manhattan or Chicago in the USA, Dublin or Cork in Ireland, Cardiff or London in Britain, Dilli or Mumbai in India, Beijing or Shanghai or Hong Kong in China … it is unacceptable that buildings collapse … entirely unacceptable !!

.

COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDINGS 1, 2 & 7

JIM …  Unless you believe in conspiracy theories, please study the 2005 & 2008 NIST(USA) Reports on the 9-11 WTC Buildings 1, 2 & 7 Collapses.  The 2 Final Reports can be downloaded from this Page on Sustainable Design International’s Corporate WebSite … http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/structdesfire.htm … along with other key documents and links.

Some indication of the enormous quantity of 9-11 WTC Incident Documentation issued by NIST(USA) can be seen below …

Colour photograph showing the enormous quantity of 9-11 WTC Incident Documentation, issued by the U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology, which is still readily available for the public to access and download.

.

PUBLIC SAFETY 10 YEARS AFTER 9-11 ?

If it is entirely unacceptable to the Public that buildings collapse … in how many National Building Codes does the following Critical Public Safety Equation appear today ?   The answer is NONE !

Colour image showing Page 21 from my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

Is there some fundamental reason why Levels of Safety for the Public should vary so much from one country to another ?   NO, there is not !

Within Europe, and in relation to the New EU Construction Product Regulation 305/2011, which I discussed here a few days ago … the European Commission, in a discussion document dating back to the mid-1980′s, suggested that the only way to effectively realize a Single Market for Construction Products would be to introduce Harmonized EU Building Regulations in all of the EU Member States.  Of course the Member States, at the time, went ballistic at the very mention of this idea … and it was quickly withdrawn.  I take great pleasure in repeating that important idea today.

Jim …  The Critical Public Safety Statement above is fully consistent with … and meets … the ‘Basic Requirements for Construction Works’ in Annex I of EU Regulation 305/2011.

.

However, in relation to any one EU Member State … let’s take Ireland as an example … compare a situation where, in a remote rural location, it might take almost an hour for a sufficient fire service presence to arrive at the scene of a building fire emergency … with a similar situation in the middle of a city, or large town, where the time required will not be greater than 15 minutes … then, although the Level of Safety for the Public can be / should be / must be the same in both situations … I would expect, in the remote rural location having a poor fire service support infrastructure, that the range of Fire Protection Measures to be employed in a typical building would be more extensive, and the performance expected of those Measures would be higher … in order to achieve an Equivalent Level of Safety in both rural and urban locations.  Is that not a rational idea ??

Unfortunately, that’s not how the present systems work … National or European !   Levels of Public Safety differ from one country to the next … and from one region, within any one country, to the next … without any good reason … and without meaningful consultation and the full understanding of the Public.

.

BUILDINGS & FIREFIGHTERS ARE NOT YET SAFER

JIM …  In spite of all of the spin coming from the other side of the Atlantic … and discounting criminality and fraud in construction practices … Buildings and Firefighters are not yet safer … because the large, difficult, complex flaws and failures in Conventional Fire Engineering have not yet been aggressively confronted … and properly solved.

In a post last year, on 18 October 2010 … I referred to the Cul-de-Sac of Current Fire Engineering … and illustrated a typical architectural detail in a Dublin Building – a common detail also to be found in India, China, USA, England & Wales, etc., etc – which demonstrates a Fundamental Flaw at the very core of conventional thinking and practice.

On Thursday next … 22 September 2011 … at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar and Workshop in the RDS, Dublin … I will present this flawed detail … and a solution which is fully compatible with … and answers … the NIST Recommendations !

BUT … would anybody like to show me where any National Building Codes have been revised and updated to solve this Fundamental Flaw ?

Colour image showing Page 33 from my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

. 

Colour image showing Page 35 from my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour image showing Page 36 from my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour image showing Page 37 from my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour image showing Page 38 from my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

A CASE STUDY OF ENGLAND & WALES

10 years after 9-11 … there are two reasons for taking a closer look at England & Wales (Britain) …

• The Building Regulations for England & Wales were used as the model for the Irish Building Regulations, which were first introduced here in the early 1990′s.  And, in the absence of Harmonized European Standards … British National Standards tend, with only a few exceptions, to become the default Irish National Standard ;
• British National Standards are being applied in many different parts of the world outside England & Wales … in most cases, without any proper consideration of content … or adaptation to local conditions.

.

Colour image showing the Cover Page of Approved Document B: 'Fire Safety' ... Volume 2 - Buildings Other Than Dwellinghouses ... from the Building Regulations for England & Wales. Click to enlarge.

.

The Institution of Fire Engineers (Ireland) Annual Fire Conference, which was held last year, on Wednesday 20th October 2010 … in the Dublin Fire Brigade Training Centre, Marino, Dublin … threw up some interesting ‘notions’ for consideration by a diverse range of participants.

One curious proposition … repeated quite often during the day … was that Approved Document B, in the British System of Building Regulations, was basically still a sound document … and that it should pass an upcoming major review with little difficulty.

I don’t agree … Approved Document B is inadequate and dysfunctional !

With regard to Structural Performance in Fire … instead of referring to Approved Document A – Structure … the reader is referred to Appendices at the back of Approved Document B, which only reinforce the erroneous concept of Single Structural Element Fire Protection …

And along with its many other major problems … see my post, dated 2009-06-14 … British Standard BS 9999 takes no account of any of the 2005 & 2008 NIST Recommendations, Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse or Disproportionate Damage … and, in fact, directly conflicts with aspects of the Building Regulations for England & Wales …

Colour image showing Page 51 in the Appendix of my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

In order to take a close look at Approved Document B … I used the vehicle of a Notional Hotel Project in Cardiff, Wales … similar to the Early 1990′s Dublin Hotel Project shown above …

Colour image showing Page 52 in the Appendix of my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

With regard to properly showing Fitness for Intended Use of Fire Protection related Products and Building Systems … instead of referring to Regulation 7 … the reader is again referred to Appendices at the back of Approved Document B … which explains why we have such serious problems, i.e. lack of Durability and very low Resistance to Mechanical Damage, with the Thermal Insulation Products used for the Fire Protection of Structural Steelwork …

I also had to quote from Part D of the Irish Building Regulations to fill a gap in the British Regulation 7 …

Colour image showing Page 53 in the Appendix of my Overhead Presentation on 'Sustainable Fire Engineering' ... scheduled for this Thursday, 22 September 2011, at the ASFP Ireland Fire Seminar & Workshop ... to be held at the RDS, in Ballsbridge, Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

.

END

For me, it was an enjoyable few days in Cardiff.

The Immediate Past President of the IFE, Mr John Woodcock, had initiated an important programme of activities during his 2010/2011 Term of Office on the theme of ‘Fire Engineering & Sustainability’.  The New IFE President for 2011/2012, Mr. H.G. (Hao-Giang) Tay, has stated that he will continue this work with enthusiasm.

This brings me very neatly to the reason for my attendance at the Cardiff ‘Gig’.  I had been invited by HG Tay to make a presentation on ‘Sustainable Fire Engineering’.  This, I was very pleased and honoured to do.

.

” The audience found the conference extremely valuable and I had many delegates who spoke to me specifically about how good the conference was and the high standard of the presentations.  The number of questions on each presentation was a testament to the interest of the audience.

The subject is of such importance that we really need to make sure the voice of the profession is firmly planted in all decision-making on design, protection and management of buildings.”

[Short Extract, Letter from HG Tay, International IFE President, dated 27 July 2011]

.

Tremendous Injury was caused to the Local Environment in Buncefield ... but Our Planet can no longer suffer these Criminal Human Acts !

2011 IFE Cardiff Overhead Presentation

CJ Walsh: “Sustainable Fire Engineering IS THE FUTURE !”

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (3.98 Mb)

.

In order to properly protect the interests of Society and our Clients/Client Organizations … and to effectively realize a Safe and Sustainable Built Environment in the 21st Century … it is necessary, in designing a building for fire and its immediate aftermath, for the Fire Engineer to develop Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives … which must never be confused with the minimal Fire Safety Objectives mandated in Building and Fire Regulations and Codes.

Sustainable Fire Engineering is concerned with far more than compliance with Legislation !   For this reason, a Fire Engineering Code of Ethics is essential.

.

Ethically Based Sustainable Fire Engineering must also consider the following issues, which are relevant to Today’s Human Environment :

1. Sustainable Human & Social Development.
2. Adaptation to Climate Change and Severe Weather Events … not less than a recurrence interval of 100 years should be used in design, always bearing in mind that the minimum Building Life Cycle for a Sustainable Building is 100 years.
3. Resistance to Fire-Induced Progressive Building Collapse and Disproportionate Damage.
4. Sufficient attention and care for Vulnerable Building Users in ‘situations of risk’ – refer to Article 11 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
5. Safety of Firefighters & Rescue Teams – refer to Essential Requirement 2 of the European Union’s Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC.

.

In this Overhead Presentation …

• Clearly outlined is a Holistic Perspective of the much wider scope for Sustainable Fire Engineering in the Future … Fire Engineering which has an empirical and scientifically robust foundation … Fire Engineering which is not afraid to confront and absorb the lessons of the 9-11 WTC Incident (2001) in New York, or the 2008 Mumbai ‘Hive Attacks’ … Fire Engineering which discards its outrageously shameful disregard for People with Activity Limitations … Fire Engineering which understands Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse and Disproportionate Damage in Buildings and, most importantly, understands the difference between these two related structural concepts … Fire Engineering which is capable of full integration with the Mainstream Construction Sector ;
• Sustainable Human & Social Development is clearly defined, and the current widespread confusion about the far more limited concept of ‘Green’ is removed ;
• The UNESCO WFEO/FMOI Model Code of Ethics, updated by CJ Walsh in 2011, is proposed as a suitable and very necessary template for the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) ;
• As Sustainable Design Solutions are appropriate to Local Geography, Culture, Climate (and Climate Change), Economy, Social Need, Language/Dialect, etc … it is strongly recommended that the IFE should develop Global Regional Guidance Documents on Sustainable Fire Engineering, i.e. separate documents for Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, etc ;
• Finally … this Presentation initiates a fresh and entirely new dialogue within the International Fire Science and Engineering Community.

.

What are your views and comments ?

.

.

END

Back to the present … and in any jurisdiction, news of  Firefighter Fatalities and/or Injuries is very distressing.  It has been remarkable to note, however, how some countries, e.g. Japan, are expending significant time and resources on developing innovative ways to improve firefighter safety in buildings … while most countries are not.  Over many years, I have formed the clear impression that, generally, firefighters are regarded in much the same way as soldiers, i.e. they are a disposable asset … ‘Theirs not to reason why / Theirs but to do and die’ … etc., etc.  This situation is entirely unacceptable, and in need of urgent resolution !

On 6th & 7th July … in Cardiff, Wales … I have been invited by the International President of the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE), Mr. HG Tay, to make a presentation on ‘Sustainable Fire Engineering’ at the 2011 IFE International Fire Conference and Annual General Meeting.  I am greatly honoured by this invitation.

During the course of that presentation, I will be referring to Firefighter Safety … but much more needs to be said, beforehand, in relation to the untapped contribution of building design to greater levels of firefighter safety …

INTRODUCTION

It may be obvious for some (but, believe me, not for all !) that with regard to fighting fires in buildings … Firefighters have 2 Basic Functions :

• to rescue people who are trapped in a Fire Building (i.e. a building which is on fire) … or people who, for some reason, cannot independently evacuate the building (e.g. people with activity limitations) ;   and
• to fight those fires, and ensure that they are properly extinguished.

Note:  Extinction of a fire is confirmed only after a thorough visual inspection by a competent person.

.

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

In a previous post, dated 13 December 2010 … I said that it was no longer ethically acceptable to ignore the issue of Firefighter Safety in the design and construction of buildings … because design can make a major contribution to their safety.

Unfortunately, Firefighter Safety must continue to remain an ethical issue because Building Regulations in most countries rarely, if ever, refer to this important aspect of design and construction.  Safety at Work Legislation has a related, but different, intent.

Regrettably, most of the building design professions either have no Code of Ethics … or there is a Code which is ‘lite-lite-lite’, i.e. very weak on ethics … or, worse still, they have a Code … but it is called a Code of Professional Conduct, the principal intent of which is to preserve and protect the profession and its vested interests.

At European Level …

Essential Requirements 1 & 2 (of 6 … for the time being) … in Annex I of European Union (EU) Council Directive 89/106/EEC, of 21 December 1988, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to Construction Products … state the following …

1. Mechanical Resistance & Stability

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that the loadings that are liable to act on it during its construction and use will not lead to any of the following:

(a) collapse of the whole or part of the works ;

(b) major deformations to an inadmissible degree ;

(c) damage to other parts of the works or to fittings or installed equipment as a result of major deformation of the load-bearing construction ;

(d) damage by an event to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.

2. Safety in Case of Fire

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that in the event of an outbreak of fire:

- the load-bearing capacity of the construction can be assumed for a specific period of time ;

- the generation and spread of fire and smoke within the works are limited ;

- the spread of the fire to neighbouring construction works is limited ;

- occupants can leave the works or be rescued by other means ;

- the safety of rescue teams is taken into consideration.

.

Sweden … has incorporated all 6 Essential Requirements of EU Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC into its National Building Regulations … but has omitted the reference to the ‘safety of rescue teams’, i.e. Firefighter Safety.  Why is that ?

Ireland, along with England & Wales, has not incorporated the EU CPD Essential Requirements into its National Building Regulations.  There is no requirement, in Part B of the Building Regulations of either of these two separate jurisdictions, to consider Firefighter Safety in the design and construction of buildings.

In these three specific cases, taken as a simple example, this is a serious legal flaw … especially since the European Template, above, has existed since the late 1980′s !

.

Let me illustrate how Building Design & Construction can make a major contribution to improved levels of Firefighter Safety …

     A.  Accessible Internal Staircases Having Sufficient Unobstructed Width

From a building user’s point of view … the success of a building depends, to a large extent, on the ‘quality’ of its circulation spaces.  During the design process, however, an architect is typically concerned with the relationship between different functions and spaces … while, at the same time, he/she is shaping and moulding the internal and external forms of the building.

The full range of tasks and activities in these circulation spaces is rarely, if ever, considered by the building designer.  The subject is not covered in Architectural Schools … and in later professional life, a reluctance to carry out Building Post-Occupation Evaluations (POE’s) reinforces this low level of awareness.

Some Tasks & Activities in Building Circulation Spaces …

• Access to the building’s spaces and use of its services and facilities ;
• Egress from the building during normal, everyday circumstances ;
• Independent Evacuation, in the event of an emergency ;
• Assisted Evacuation by others, or Rescue by Firefighters, for those building users who cannot independently evacuate the building, e.g. people with activity limitations ;
• Firefighter Access & Reconnaissance, in the event of an emergency ;
• Firefighter Attack, as they approach the proximity of the fire scene ;
• Firefighter Removal from the building, by colleagues, in the event of injury, impairment, or a fire event induced health condition ;
• Firefighter Withdrawal at the successful conclusion of firefighting operations.

.

Colour photograph showing an injured, or impaired, firefighter being assisted by two colleagues in an upward staircase removal exercise. For reasons outlined in a previous post (2010-12-13) ... all three firefighters must continue to wear full Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) ... and use Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA). Click to enlarge.

.

The photograph above was extracted from this  2010 Poster Presentation …

Daniel DiRenzo, Cherry Hill Fire Department, New Jersey, USA

Building Fires – Personal Harness Use – Firefighter Removals

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (1.73 Mb)

No matter what the jurisdiction … no matter what Building Regulations do or do not require … it is clear that, during a ‘real’ fire emergency, patterns of circulation are not simple … and they cannot easily be segregated into categories with simple titles.  They are complex … and, quite often, they overlap.

In the case of the firefighter removal on a staircase (shown above) … there is a necessity to consider another type of ‘Contraflow’ … where the injured, or impaired, firefighter with two of his/her colleagues rendering assistance are together moving away from the scene of the fire … while other firefighters are moving in the opposite direction, towards the fire.

In all but the most simple and smallest building types, this is what a Fire Evacuation Staircase should look like below … having a clear unobstructed staircase width, between handrails, of 1500 mm … with a stair going/tread of 300 mm, and a stair riser of 150 mm.  Proper attention by the designer to Accessibility Design Criteria will also make the staircase far, far easier … and safer … for Firefighter Movement …

Colour drawing taken from International Standard ISO FDIS 21542, and associated inset photographs ... showing a Fire Evacuation Staircase suitable for All Building Types, which is designed for Firefighter Safety. The staircase is also designed to accommodate Building User Evacuation/Firefighter Contraflow, illustrated with an inset colour photograph ... the Rescue/Assisted Evacuation of People with Activity Limitations, also illustrated with an inset colour photograph ... and the Use of a Stretcher. The staircase design is based on the work of CJ Walsh. Click to enlarge.

.

     B.  Accessible Façade Walkways in High-Rise Buildings

With today’s powerful drivers of greater energy conservation and efficiency in buildings, adaptation to climate change, and a paradigm shift in thinking on the reduction of adverse environmental impact by buildings … External Façade Design is rapidly evolving … becoming far more complex and, in many cases, comprising multiple ‘skins’.

Just check out this architectural feature, below, in an Osaka (Japan) High-Rise Hotel … which not only serves as an accessible route for evacuation and/or rescue in the event of a fire incident … but also permits much easier access for maintenance and window cleaning.

This architectural feature should be mandatory in the case of high-rise buildings with a single, central core …

Colour photograph showing the High-Rise Swissôtel Nankai in Osaka, Japan. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-20. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing the External Walkway on the Building Façade of the High-Rise Swissôtel Nankai in Osaka, Japan. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-19. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing the Hotel Room Evacuation Panel to the External Façade Walkway, which can also facilitate rescue by firefighters during a fire incident. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-19. Click to enlarge.

.

Building Design can make a substantial contribution to greater Firefighter Safety !!

BUT … who is raising the awareness of building designers about this issue ???

.

.

END

Colour photograph showing the 47 Storey Building 7 in the World Trade Center Complex, New York ... before 9-11 (11 September 2001).

In August 2008 … the National Institute of Standards & Technology (USA) issued NIST NCSTAR 1A: ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7′.  A copy of the report can be downloaded from this Page on our Corporate WebSite … http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/structdesfire.htm

” Had WTC 7 been expressly designed for prevention of fire-induced progressive collapse, it would have been sufficiently robust to withstand local failure due to the fires without suffering total collapse.”   [Page 58, 2008 NIST NCSTAR 1A]

Contained within Chapter 5 of that 2008 Report are 13 Recommendations (A-M) …

NIST NCSTAR 1A  Recommendation A

NIST recommends that: (1) Progressive Collapse be prevented in buildings through the development and widespread adoption of consensus standards and code provisions, along with the decision support tools and design guidelines needed for their use in practice ;

Colour photograph showing the smouldering ruins of WTC Building 7, which had collapsed late on the afternoon of 9-11 (11 September 2001) ... a dramatic, full-scale demonstration of Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse.

I have written before about ‘Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse’ and a CIB W14 International Innovation & Research Project, which I lead.  See the adjoining dedicated Page on this Blog … http://www.cjwalsh.ie/progressive-collapse-fire/ … for the background information.

Phase II of that project is examining …

• Gaps in our current understanding and practice of Structural Fire Engineering ;
• Institutional Barriers delaying the international response to NIST Recommendation A above ;
• A Rational Route Forward to meet that complex Technical Challenge.

.

CIB W14 Commission Meeting in Paris, France – 11 April 2011

C.J. Walsh Research Project Presentation

Phase II: ‘Structural Reliability & Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse’

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (1.7 Mb)

.

The CIB W14 International Innovation & Research Project’s Route Forward is as follows …

1.     Mainstream the Language, Practices, Procedures and Design Methodologies of Fire Science & Engineering … so that other design disciplines can appreciate that Ethical Fire Science & Engineering also has a sound, modern, rational and empirical basis.   [CIB W14 Task]

2.     Raise awareness about the primacy, and encourage the wide acceptance, of Fire Serviceability Limit States in Structural Fire Engineering … and the universal requirement that buildings must resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse and, in addition, also resist Disproportionate Damage.   [CIB W14 WG IV Task]

3.     Indicate the need for, and foster the development of, innovative Thermal Insulation Structural Fire Protection Systems which are durable, can resist mechanical damage in ambient and fire conditions, and can be properly shown to be ‘fit for their intended life-cycle use’.   [Industry Task]

4.     In steel construction … depending on its location in a building and having designed sufficiently robust connections for fire conditions … show why, where and how Thermal Insulation must now be used to maintain a Lower Temperature in the Steel … in order to ensure that its deformations (+/- deflection, expansion and distortion, etc.) remain within design parameters … both during the fire and, for a minimum period afterwards, during the ‘cooling phase’.   [CIB W14 WG IV Task]

5.     Encourage the development of Fire Engineering Design Guidelines for new and existing buildings, along with the Decision Support Tools needed for their use in practice … to support #2 and #4 above.  And propose how Existing Code/Regulation Provisions and Standards should be suitably updated and revised.   [International Fire Science & Engineering Community Task]

Colour graphic presenting an overview of the 9-11 (11 September 2001) Incident at the World Trade Center Complex, in New York.

.

.

END

1.  Friday 18th February 2011: Statement on Behalf of Co-Ordinating Group

Re:  Kerdiffstown Fire

Date released: Feb 18 2011, 3:12 PM

Active firefighting has been wound down as brigades undertake a phased withdrawal from the Kerdiffstown landfill site near Naas.  The fire, which flared up on 18 January 2011, was unprecedented in Ireland and it proved very challenging.  Initial assessments indicate that, by comparison with international experience, the time taken to suppress the fire was relatively short – given its nature and the environment in which it took place.  Fire brigades will maintain a precautionary watch on the site until the middle of next week.  The site remains a very dangerous area and people should not enter it for any reason.  The Environmental Protection Agency has increased security in the interests of public safety and to prevent further trespass in the area.

And …

2.  EPA to Develop Remediation Plan for Kerdiffstown Landfill, Naas, County Kildare.

Date released: Feb 18 2011, 3:26 PM

The EPA, HSE, Kildare County Council, Defence Forces and Gardaí have, for the past 27 days, been co-ordinating actions to deal with the fire and other environmental issues at Kerdiffstown Landfill, near Naas.  In particular, the EPA has been working closely with Kildare Fire Service, providing expert advice in fighting the serious fire at the Kerdiffstown landfill site, contracting in providers of cold gas injection equipment and providing air monitoring and analysis.  The EPA is exercising its powers under Section 56 of the Waste Management Act to secure the site and to start the longer-term process of remediation of the whole site.  Already the EPA has begun the following preliminary works:

• removing stockpiles of fire-risk waste ;
• providing 24-hour security personnel at the site for the long-term ;
• establishing an on-site office ;
• increased on-site monitoring and inspection ;
• dealing with immediate Health & Safety issues on the site ;
• removing landfill leachate.

As the plan for the remediation progresses, the EPA will be meeting with the local community on a regular basis in order to hear their views and update them on the remediation project.  Remediation works will be phased and the EPA will prioritise work that alleviates odour from the site in the short to medium term.  Funding for the short-term emergency works to date has been provided by the Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government.  Further funding for the remediation will be released on a phased basis.  The EPA has taken enforcement action against those involved in the operation of the Kerdiffstown site, including three High Court cases.  High Court orders are in place preventing the deposit of any further waste onto the Kerdiffstown site.  The EPA will use its powers under the Waste Management Acts to seek recovery of all costs expended by the State during the remediation project.  The EPA is also seeking orders against directors of the companies who formerly operated the site in order to recover these costs.  A criminal investigation file relating to the previous operations at the site has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

A lot of words have been used in these press releases … but the amount of actual information which has been communicated to the public is Sweet FA !   And … please note well … there is no statement that the Landfill Fire has been extinguished.

.

PROTECTION OF FIREFIGHTERS & KERDIFFSTOWN LOCAL COMMUNITY

We consider that it is very important for Firefighters and Members of the Kerdiffstown Local Community, i.e. anybody who lives within 2 Km of the Landfill Site, to have sufficient information about Landfill Fires … in order to ask some pertinent questions about this fire incident.

I hate to say this … but, languishing on an important page of the FireOx International WebSite for many years … http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/proenv.htm … unloved (?!?) … has been this 2002 United States Report …

U.S. Fire Administration – Federal Emergency Management Agency

May 2002 / FA-225

LANDFILL FIRES – Their Magnitude, Characteristics, and Mitigation

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (583 kb)

.

As you read the document … pinch yourself hard, and try to remember that the Regulatory Control over Landfill Sites in Ireland has been LITE-LITE-LITE !!!   … That there has been much illegal dumping all over the country !!   … AND … That some Local Authorities have even forgotten where old, inactive Landfill Sites are located … a case I myself encountered in Clontarf, within the functional area of what was then known as Dublin Corporation !

Black and white drawing ... Figure 1 in the 2002 U.S. FEMA Landfill Fires Report above ... showing the components of a Regulated Landfill Site, courtesy of the California Waste Management Board. How many Landfill Sites in Ireland, or in Europe for that matter, have all ... or any ... of the components illustrated above ? Click to enlarge.

.

LANDFILL EMISSIONS – CLIMATE CHANGE & FIRE SAFETY ISSUES !

Extract from the 2002 U.S. Report … Page 8 …

Landfill emissions are the result of the decomposition of organic materials in the landfill (including yard waste, household waste, food waste, and paper).  Because of the nature of the construction of landfills, this decomposition is anaerobic and results in the production of large quantities of Methane (which is highly flammable) and Carbon Dioxide.  In fact, landfills are the largest source of methane emissions in the United States, accounting for 35% of methane emissions in 1999.  MSW (municipal solid waste) landfills generate about 93% of U.S. landfill emissions; industrial landfills account for the remaining emissions.  Methane emissions from landfills are affected by site-specific factors such as waste composition, available moisture, and landfill size.  Approximately 28% of the methane generated in landfills in 1999 was recovered.  The remainder of landfill-generated methane was dispersed in the air.

Approximately 50% of gas emitted from landfills is methane; carbon dioxide accounts for about 45 percent, and the remainder is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and other gases.  Both Methane and Carbon Dioxide are Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s) that pose environmental problems.  Of the two gases, methane is far more potent than carbon dioxide.

[Media reports have also stated that Carbon Dioxide was used during attempts to suppress the Kerdiffstown Landfill Fire in County Kildare !?!]

.

HEALTH EFFECTS OF LANDFILL FIRES !

Extract from the 2002 U.S. Report … Pages 14 & 15 …

In addition to the burn and explosion hazards posed by landfill fires, smoke and other by-products of landfill fires also present a health risk to firefighters and others exposed to them.  Smoke from landfill fires generally contains Particulate Matter (the products of incomplete combustion of the fuel source), which can aggravate pre-existing pulmonary conditions or cause respiratory distress.  As with all fires, those in landfills produce toxic smoke and gases.  The danger and level of toxicity of these gases depend on the length of exposure one has to them and on the type of material that is burning.

Underground fires can result in CO (Carbon Monoxide) levels in excess of 50,000 ppm (parts per million) – the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit for CO is 50 ppm.  OSHA standards prohibit worker exposure to more than 50 parts of the gas per million parts of air averaged during an 8-hour time period.  Carbon Monoxide is harmful when breathed because it displaces oxygen in the blood and deprives the heart, brain, and other vital organs of oxygen, which can cause permanent damage or death.

Another serious concern in landfill fires is the emission of Dioxins.  Accidental fires at landfills and the uncontrolled burning of residential waste are considered the largest sources of dioxin emissions in the United States.  The term ‘dioxins’ refers to a group of chemical compounds with similar chemical and biological characteristics that are released into the air during the combustion process.  Dioxins are also naturally occurring and are present throughout the environment.  However, exposure to high levels of dioxins has been linked to cancer, liver damage, skin rashes, and reproductive and developmental disorders.

.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF LANDFILL FIRES !

Extract from the 2002 U.S. Report … Pages 16 & 17 …

The smoke and run-off from landfill fires can be dangerous to those living in the area and to the environment.  It is important that air and water quality issues be addressed early in a fire suppression operation to prevent contamination as much as possible.  As mentioned earlier, water used to suppress a landfill fire can overwhelm a facility’s leachate collection system, if one exists (older facilities may have been constructed prior to regulations requiring leachate collection systems).

.

FIRE & LANDFILL CONTENTS !

Extract from the 2002 U.S. Report … Page 17 …

Fires occurring in landfills where hazardous wastes are buried can be particularly difficult.  In past years, illegal dumping of hazardous and toxic materials in landfills and other dumping sites was relatively common.  When a fire occurs and rescue workers have wrong or misleading information about the buried contents (e.g., illegal or unknown toxic or radioactive wastes), the fire suppression operation can be extremely dangerous.

Although not a landfill fire, the Wade Dump Fire in February 1978 clearly illustrates the dangers posed by fires involving unknown hazardous materials.  Firefighters responded to a suspected tyre fire at an abandoned rubber shredding plant on the Delaware River outside of Philadelphia.  They were unaware that the property’s owner and namesake, Melvin Wade, had transformed the plant into one of the most toxic hazardous waste dumpsites in U.S. history.  By the night of the fire, more than 3 million gallons of cyanide, benzene, toluene, and other chemicals were stored on the site – plus thousands of junk tyres.  The burning chemicals produced multi-coloured smoke and noxious fumes, which alerted firefighters to the unusual nature of the fire they were fighting.  Intensified by chemicals and other fuels, the fire raged for hours.  Drums of chemicals exploded, injuring firefighters and even damaging fire trucks.  As the night progressed, firefighters and other emergency workers noticed that the chemicals were dissolving their protective gear and making it difficult for them to breathe; more than 40 firefighters were sent to a nearby hospital for treatment.  Over the past 20 or more years, dozens of those who were present at the Wade Dump fire have become ill, and many have died from cancers and other diseases.  Melvin Wade and others responsible for creating the toxic site were found criminally responsible for their actions.

.

JOINING SOME DOTS – CONTAMINATED PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES IN IRELAND

On Thursday, 17 February 2011 … the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the following report … with an accompanying, ‘spinned’ press release …

Environmental Protection Agency – Ireland

2011-02-17

The Provision & Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland – A Report for the Years 2008-2009

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (2.77 Mb)

.

Once again … pinch yourself hard, and try to remember that the Regulatory Control over Public Water Supplies in Ireland has been LITE-LITE-LITE !!!   Our Public Water Supplies are not in good shape … to say the least.  However, the management and control of the country’s landfill sites – legal, illegal and no longer known – IS a relevant and related issue to the contamination of our public water supplies … not the only issue.

Now, I don’t know about you … but I certainly am not happy about either the accuracy, or the reliability, of the recent EPA Report on Ireland’s Public Water Supplies !

.

.

END