Project Description
Application 1: Industrial / Storage
For the purposes of this animation, we have used an industrial or storage type facility, such as a large distribution warehouse. However, the applications described are equally applicable to many other types of large enclosure, such as large sporting arenas or exhibition halls.
The vast majority of the fire safety measures in these types of buildings are driven by insurer requirements, such as fire detection and alarm systems, fire compartmentation and fire suppression. As we explain below, these measures are not always requested in standard guidance and as a result they can be used to generate trade-offs elsewhere.
Fire compartmentation is intended to keep fires small so that the emergency services can quickly bring them under control. Although not always recommended in fire safety guidance, fire compartmentation can be requested by an insurer as a means of reducing the potential level of loss. In many cases insurers are open to relaxing fire compartmentation when fire suppression systems are provided.
Given the very large volumes in these types of buildings, significant extensions to recommended travel distances can normally be justified. We tend to do this by stepping away from guidance and comparing the times taken for people to escape, with the time available before conditions become unsafe. We complete this exercise using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling, coupled with a measure of the time taken for people to escape. Temperature losses within the smoke layer, which may have a detrimental effect, can also be studied.
Large free-standing steel framed mezzanines are common in these buildings. The mezzanine structural elements support occupied floors and therefore require fire resistance. At Semper, we have developed our own probabilistic methodology to demonstrate that passive fire protection can be safely removed from supporting structural elements. We use event tree analysis (EVA) and Monte Carlo simulations to generate a statistical measure of the likelihood of failure in two cases: one the code complaint case with passive fire protection; and two the alternative case with sprinkler protection only. The results often show that the likelihood of failure is higher in the code compliant case compared to the alternative case. We are also able to back calculate how reliable a sprinkler system needs to be in order to provide an equivalent level of performance as the code compliant case. This method is only applicable when the building insurer requests a sprinkler system and the relevant fire guidance does not.
The vast majority of the fire safety measures in these types of buildings are driven by insurer requirements, such as fire detection and alarm systems, fire compartmentation and fire suppression. As we explain below, these measures are not always requested in standard guidance and as a result they can be used to generate trade-offs elsewhere.
Fire compartmentation is intended to keep fires small so that the emergency services can quickly bring them under control. Although not always recommended in fire safety guidance, fire compartmentation can be requested by an insurer as a means of reducing the potential level of loss. In many cases insurers are open to relaxing fire compartmentation when fire suppression systems are provided.
Given the very large volumes in these types of buildings, significant extensions to recommended travel distances can normally be justified. We tend to do this by stepping away from guidance and comparing the times taken for people to escape, with the time available before conditions become unsafe. We complete this exercise using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling, coupled with a measure of the time taken for people to escape. Temperature losses within the smoke layer, which may have a detrimental effect, can also be studied.
Large free-standing steel framed mezzanines are common in these buildings. The mezzanine structural elements support occupied floors and therefore require fire resistance. At Astute, we have developed our own probabilistic methodology to demonstrate that passive fire protection can be safely removed from supporting structural elements. We use event tree analysis (EVA) and Monte Carlo simulations to generate a statistical measure of the likelihood of failure in two cases: one the code complaint case with passive fire protection; and two the alternative case with sprinkler protection only. The results often show that the likelihood of failure is higher in the code compliant case compared to the alternative case. We are also able to back calculate how reliable a sprinkler system needs to be in order to provide an equivalent level of performance as the code compliant case. This method is only applicable when the building insurer requests a sprinkler system and the relevant fire guidance does not.
Choosing the correct guidance approach is central to developing a fire strategy that is both flexible and cost effective. We advise entering into early negotiations with the client, building control and the building’s insurers to discuss the benefits of pursuing various approaches, ensuring whichever one is chosen does not limit our scope. We have used these methodologies successfully on numerous completed projects, demonstrating how some fire safety measures can be redundant and that compliance can be achieved with minimal fuss and maximum flexibility.