sustainable design

NIST WTC Recommendations 4-7 > Structural Fire Endurance

Posted 2011-11-18 by CJ Walsh

First Post in This Series …

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: SOME PRELIMINARY COMMENTS …

1. Before launching into the next Group of NIST WTC Recommendations, it would be useful to distinguish between the following technical terms … which have been adapted from ISO/TR 10158: ‘Principles and Rationale Underlying Calculation Methods in Relation to Fire Resistance of Structural Elements’ …

Real Fire: A fire which develops in a building and which is influenced by such factors as the type of building and its occupancy; the combustible content (fire load); the ventilation, geometry and thermal properties of the fire compartment, or building space (should no fire compartmentation exist); the fire suppression systems in the building and the actions of the fire services.

Real Fires are complex phenomena. Consequently, in structural fire engineering, idealized versions of ‘real fires’ are employed.

Experimental Fire: A full or reduced scale fire with specified and controlled characteristics.

Design Fire: A fire with specified exposure data intended for use in connection with structural fire engineering calculations.

A Design Fire may either be representative of the thermal exposure described by the standard time-temperature-pressure relationship in an International/European/National Standard, or some non-standard exposure intended to simulate particular fire exposure conditions.

However, in SDI Technical Guidance Note 95/102: ‘Proper Evidence of a Fire Test Result within the European Economic Area (EEA)’, issued on 22 May 1995, I included the following caution …

#1.7 A Fire Test in a Fire Test Laboratory, involving exposure of a test specimen or prototype to ‘test fire’ conditions, gives only a limited indication of: (a) the likely performance of a particular product, material or component when exposed to ‘real fire’ conditions; and (b) the suitability of a product, material or component for a particular end use.

2. In conventional fire engineering, much confusion arises because of a failure to properly distinguish between these two concepts …

Fire Resistance

The inherent capability of a building assembly, or an ‘element of construction’, to resist the passage of heat, smoke and flame for a specified time during a fire.

Structural Reliability

The ability of a structural system to fulfil its design purpose, for a specified time, under the actual environmental conditions encountered in a building.

[ In structural fire engineering, the concern must be that the structure will fulfil its purpose, both during the fire – and for a minimum period afterwards, during the ‘cooling phase’.]

3. Therefore, with regard to Recommendation 6 … it is more correct and precise to refer to ‘Steel Fire Protection Systems’, rather than to ‘steel fire resisting materials’ ! AND … the same questions must be asked about All Lightweight Steel Fire Protection Systems … not just the sprayed systems.

Lightweight Fire Protection Systems are also used to protect concrete in buildings and tunnels.

4. These 2005 NIST Recommendations will later be confirmed, and further reinforced, by the 2008 NIST Recommendations. Bringing Recommendation 7, below, closer to home … it is interesting to note that a very necessary discussion on the technical adequacy of the approach taken to structural performance in fire … in both Technical Guidance Document B (Ireland) and Approved Document B (England & Wales) … has yet not even commenced !

2005 NIST WTC RECOMMENDATIONS

GROUP 2. Enhanced Fire Endurance of Structures

The procedures and practices used to ensure the fire endurance of structures should be enhanced by improving the technical basis for construction classifications and fire resistance ratings, improving the technical basis for standard fire resistance testing methods, use of the ‘structural frame’ approach to fire resistance ratings, and developing in-service performance requirements and conformance criteria for sprayed fire resisting materials.

NIST WTC Recommendation 4.

NIST recommends evaluating, and where needed improving, the technical basis for determining appropriate construction classifications and fire rating requirements (especially for tall buildings) – and making related code changes now, as much as possible – by explicitly considering factors including: *

[ * F-23 The construction classification and fire rating requirements should be risk-consistent with respect to the design-basis hazards and the consequences of those hazards. The fire rating requirements, which were originally developed based on experience with buildings less than 20 storeys in height, have generally decreased over the past 80 years since historical fire data for buildings suggest considerable conservatism in those requirements. For tall buildings, the likely consequences of a given threat to an occupant on the upper floors are more severe than the consequences to an occupant on the first floor or the lower floors. For example, with non-functioning elevators, both of the time requirements are much greater for full building evacuation from upper floors and emergency responder access to those floors. It is not clear how the current height and areas tables in building codes consider the technical basis for the progressively increasing risk to an occupant on the upper floors of tall buildings that are much greater than 20 storeys in height.]

timely access by emergency responders and full evacuation of occupants, or the time required for burnout without partial collapse ;
the extent to which redundancy in active fire protection systems (sprinklers and standpipe, fire alarm, and smoke management) should be credited for occupant life safety ; *

[ * F-24 Occupant life safety, prevention of fire spread, and structural integrity are considered separate safety objectives.]

the need for redundancy in fire protection systems that are critical to structural integrity ; *

[ * F-25 The passive fire protection system (including fire protection insulation, compartmentation, and fire stopping) and the active sprinkler system each provide redundancy for maintaining structural integrity in a building fire, should one of the systems fail to perform its intended function.]

the ability of the structure and local floor systems to withstand a maximum credible fire scenario* without collapse, recognizing that sprinklers could be compromised, not operational, or non-existent ;

[ * F-26 A maximum credible fire scenario includes conditions that are severe, but reasonable to anticipate, conditions related to building construction, occupancy, fire loads, ignition sources, compartment geometry, fire control methods, etc., as well as adverse, but reasonable to anticipate operating conditions.]

compartmentation requirements (e.g. 1,200 sq.m *) to protect the structure, including fire rated doorsets and automatic enclosures, and limiting air supply (e.g. thermally resisting window assemblies) to retard fire spread in buildings with large, open floor plans ;

[ * F-27 Or a more appropriate limit, which represents a reasonable area for active fire fighting operations.]

the effect of spaces containing unusually large fuel concentrations for the expected occupancy of the building ; and
the extent to which fire control systems, including suppression by automatic or manual means, should be credited as part of the prevention of fire spread.

Adoption of this Recommendation will allow building codes to distinguish the risks associated with different building heights, fuel concentrations, and fire protection systems. Research is needed to develop the data and evaluate alternative proposals for construction classifications and fire ratings. Model Building Codes: A comprehensive review of current construction classifications and fire rating requirements and the establishment of a uniform set of revised thresholds with a firm technical basis that considers the factors identified above should be undertaken.*

[ * F-28 The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 5000 model code and the International Building Code (IBC) both recognize the risks associated with different building heights and accepted changes in 2001 and 2004, respectively. Both model codes now require that buildings 126 metres and higher have a minimum 4 hour structural fire resistance rating. The previous requirement was 2 hours. The change provides increased fire resistance for the structural system leading to enhanced tenability of the structure and gives firefighters additional protection while fighting a fire. While NIST supports these changes as an interim step, NIST believes that it is essential to complete a comprehensive review that will establish a firm technical basis for construction classifications and fire rating requirements.]

NIST WTC Recommendation 5.

NIST recommends that the technical basis for the century-old standard for fire resistance testing of components, assemblies and systems be improved through a national effort. Necessary guidance also should be developed for extrapolating the results of tested assemblies to prototypical building systems. A key step in fulfilling this Recommendation is to establish a capability for studying and testing components, assemblies, and systems under realistic fire and load conditions.

This effort should address the technical issues listed below: *

[ * F-29 The technical issues were identified from the series of four fire resistance tests of the WTC Floor system, and the review and analysis of relevant documents that were conducted as part of this Investigation.]

a. Criteria and test methods for determining:

structural limit states, including failure, and means for measurement ;
effect of scale of test assembly versus prototype application, especially for long-span structures that significantly exceed the size of test furnaces ;
effect of restraining thermal expansion (end-restraint conditions) on test results, especially for long-span structures that have greater flexibility ;
fire resistance of structural connections, especially the fire protection required for a loaded connection to achieve a specified rating ; *

[ * F-30 There is a lack of test data on the fire resistance ratings of loaded connections. The fire resistance of structural connections is not rated in current practice. Also, standards and codes do not provide guidance on fire protection requirements for structural connections when the connected members have different fire resistance ratings.]

effect of the combination of loading and exposure (time-temperature profile) required to adequately represent expected conditions ;
the repeatability and reproducibility of test results (typically, results from a single test are used to determine the rating for a component or assembly) ; and
realistic ratings for structural assemblies made with materials that have improved elevated temperature properties (strength, modulus, creep behaviour).

b. Improved procedures and guidance to analyze and evaluate existing data from fire resistance tests of building components and assemblies for use in qualifying an untested building element.

c. Relationships between prescriptive ratings and performance of the assembly in real fires.

Affected National and International Standards: * ASTM E 119, NFPA 251, UL 263, and ISO 834. Model Building Codes: The standards should be adopted in model building codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard.

[ * F-31 While the NIST Recommendations are focused mainly on U.S. national standards, each U.S. standard has counterpart international standards. In a recent report (ISO/TMB AGS N 46), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), through its Advisory Group for Security (AGS), has recommended that since many of the ISO standards for the design of buildings date back to the 1980’s, they should be reviewed and updated to make use of the studies done by NIST on the World Trade Center disaster, the applicability of new technology for rescue from high buildings, natural disasters, etc. ISO’s Technical Advisory Group 8 co-ordinates standards work for buildings.]

NIST WTC Recommendation 6.

NIST recommends the development of criteria, test methods, and standards: (1) for the in-service performance of Sprayed Fire Resisting Materials (SFRM, also commonly referred to as fire protection insulation) used to protect structural components; and (2) to ensure that these materials, as installed, conform to conditions in tests used to establish the fire resistance rating of components, assemblies, and systems.

This should include:

Improved criteria and testing methodologies for the performance and durability of SFRM (e.g. adhesion, cohesion, abrasion, and impact resistance) under in-service exposure conditions (e.g. temperature, humidity, vibration, impact, with/without primer paint on steel*) for use in acceptance and quality control. The current test method to measure the bond strength, for example, does not distinguish the cohesive strength from the tensile and shear adhesive strengths. Nor does it consider the effect of primer paint on the steel surface. Test requirements that explicitly consider the effects of abrasion, vibration, shock, and impact under normal service conditions are limited or do not exist. Also, the effects of elevated temperatures on thermal properties and bond strength are not considered in evaluating the performance and durability of SFRM.

[ * F-32 NIST tests show that the adhesive strength of SFRM on steel coated with primer paint was a third to half of the adhesive strength on steel that had not been coated with primer paint. The SFRM products used in the WTC towers were applied to steel components coated with primer paint.]

Inspection procedures, including measurement techniques and practical conformance criteria, for SFRM in both the building codes and fire codes for use after installation, renovation, or modification of all mechanical and electrical systems and by fire inspectors over the life of the building. Existing standards of practice (AIA MasterSpec and AWCI Standard 12), often required by codes for some buildings need to be broadly applied to both new and existing buildings. These standards may require improvements to address the issues identified in this Recommendation.
Criteria for determining the effective uniform SFRM thickness – thermally equivalent to the variable thickness of the product as it is actually applied – that can be used to ensure that the product in the field conforms to the near uniform thickness conditions in the tests used to establish the fire resistance rating of the component, assembly, or system. Such criteria are needed to ensure that the SFRM, as installed, will provide the intended performance.
Methods for predicting the effectiveness of SFRM insulation as a function of its properties, the application characteristics, and the duration and intensity of the fire.
Methods for predicting service life performance of SFRM under in-service conditions.

Affected Standards: AIA MasterSpec and AWCI Standard 12 for field inspection and conformance criteria; ASTM standards for SFRM performance criteria and test methods. Model Building Codes: The standards should be adopted in model building codes by mandatory reference to, or incorporation of, the latest edition of the standard. (See Recommendation 10 for more on this issue.)

NIST WTC Recommendation 7.

NIST recommends the adoption and use of the ‘structural frame’ approach to fire resistance ratings. This approach requires that structural members – such as girders, beams, trusses, and spandrels having direct connection to the columns, and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads – be fire protected to the same fire resistance rating as columns. This approach is currently required by the International Building Code (IBC), one of the model codes, and is in the process of adoption by NFPA 5000, the other model code. This requirement ensures consistency in the fire protection provided to all of the structural elements that contribute to overall structural stability.* State and local jurisdictions should adopt and enforce this requirement.

[ * F-33 Had this requirement been adopted by the 1968 New York City building code, the WTC floor system, including its connections, would have had the 3 hour rating required for the columns since the floors braced the columns.]

END

Sustainable Fire Engineering – IABSE Lecture 1 December 2011

Posted 2011-11-14 by CJ Walsh

2011-11-14 …

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

NIST’s Recommendations on the 9-11 WTC Building Collapses

Posted 2011-10-25 by CJ Walsh

2011-10-25: Since shortly after my visit to Lower Manhattan in mid-October 2001 … we have maintained an Archive Page on ‘Structural Fire Engineering, World Trade Center Incident (9-11) & Fire Serviceability Limit States‘ … at SDI’s Corporate WebSite. And I have referenced here … many, many times … the Recommendations contained in the 2005 & 2008 Final Reports of the U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) on the 9-11 World Trade Center Building 1, 2 & 7 Collapses.

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

‘Priory Hall’, Fire Engineering & Protecting Society’s Interests ??

Posted 2011-10-23 by CJ Walsh

2011-10-23: Further to my post, dated 18 October 2011 …

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

Fixing ‘Priory Hall’ in Dublin – Practical Solutions Needed Now !

Posted 2011-10-18 by CJ Walsh

2011-10-18: A large ‘can of worms’ has recently been opened in Ireland …

For the last few days, including today, I have been listening intently to Joe Duffy on the RTE Radio ‘Liveline’ Programme at lunchtime. Joe is being very cautious because he cannot quite believe his ears … either about the unfolding harrowing events for occupants in ‘Priory Hall’, Donaghmede, Dublin 13 – a Private, Multi-Storey Apartment Development – or the tales and anecdotes about Irish Building Sites during the Celtic Tiger Years.

This will be of no consolation to anybody … but the big surprise, for me, is that there is so much public shock. ‘Priory Hall’ is the Tip of the Iceberg ! Ireland’s current dysfunctional approach to the development of Our(!) Built Environment … has been designed (for want of a better word) in a chaotic, haphazard and malevolent way … to end up in exactly the sort of mess which we are all now witnessing in North County Dublin.

Just to be clear … what has been happening in the Irish Construction Industry, during the boom years, has been happening for twenty years all over the country … more precisely, since the introduction of Legal National Building Regulations, with NO Effective Building Control, in 1991 … and, before that again, in those parts of this jurisdiction, outside of the major urban areas having Legal Building Bye-Laws, and Effective Building Control, i.e. mandatory inspections by competent local authority personnel at the foundation level and drainage level of all building sites … and, depending on the type of project, occasional or frequent inspections above ground level.

[ 1991: Statutory Instrument No.304 of 1991 – Building Control Act, 1990 (Commencement Order), 1991; Statutory Instrument No.305 of 1991 – Building Control Regulations, 1991; Statutory Instrument No.306 of 1991 – Building Regulations, 1991 ]

And the biggest joke of all … is that the sum of the many resources, both human and material, required to repair sub-standard construction throughout Ireland … will count as a positive contribution towards the economic indicator of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ! FUBAR

Colour photograph showing 'Priory Hall' ... a private, multi-storey apartment development located in North County Dublin, Ireland. Click to enlarge.

PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS NEEDED NOW

What I have not been hearing from the radio, or reading in the newspapers, is practical solutions.

Lest there be any doubt … this is one of the professional services we provide at Sustainable Design International !

So … how do we fix Priory Hall as the situation now presents itself … in such a way that, as soon as it is practicable, a satisfactory level of long-term safety, protection, convenience and comfort will be provided for the occupants of Priory Hall … and the social wellbeing of the local community, there, can be restored.

Afterwards … we can worry about who’s responsible, and about the reasons for the many ‘system’ failures in Ireland.

FIXING ‘PRIORY HALL’ IN DUBLIN

The following list of practical suggestions … a simple roadmap … is addressed to the Owners and Occupants of Apartments in Priory Hall.

As they have a large vested interest in the problems of Priory Hall … either directly or indirectly … no assurances or undertakings should be accepted, on face value, from either Dublin City Council (DCC) or the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government (DECLG) … or their representatives.

1. Informed Consent of Apartment Owners and Occupants

Demand that the Informed Consent of the Owner/Occupant of an Apartment is required, in writing, before any necessary Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works are carried out …

Informed Consent: Consent freely obtained – without threats or improper inducements – after appropriate disclosure to a person of relevant, adequate and easily assimilated information in a form and language understood by that person.

2. ‘As Constructed’ Drawings & Specification of Entire Development

If they exist … we’re on the way ! But, if they don’t exist … and they may not … demand that an ‘As Constructed’ Survey of the Entire Development be carried out immediately.

Demand to see a copy of the Detailed ‘As Constructed’ Drawings, and Specification, for the Entire Development.

CHECK the adequacy of the Detailed Drawings and Specification !

At this stage, remember … all of the emphasis must now be placed on actual construction … not on paperwork ! The ‘As Constructed’ Survey Drawings and Specification are only a means towards a satisfactory end … that’s all !!

3. Failures to Properly Comply with Current Building Regulation Requirements A to M (Second Schedule to Irish Building Regulations)

Demand to see a Detailed Schedule of the many failures to properly comply with current Building Regulation Requirements, i.e. Parts A to M in the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations, as amended.

Do not entertain, even for a moment, any discussion about past legal building regulation requirements, which were in force at the time of initial design or construction !

An important point to note ! The Guidance Texts in, for example, Technical Guidance Document B: ‘Fire Safety’ are merely that … GUIDANCE ! This guidance is not infallible … and in a few respects, is entirely inadequate … for example, when dealing with the structural performance of buildings during conditions of fire, and the ‘cooling phase’ immediately afterwards … and the fire evacuation of people with activity limitations, in which case the guidance actually ensures that fire evacuation is made extremely difficult, if not prevented altogether !

Do not be sucked in to any conversations about what is stated, or not stated, in the Technical Guidance Documents. This is irrelevant. The Law mandates proper compliance with the Requirements !

Some people may even attempt to quote from the Building Regulation Approved Documents for England & Wales. Just tell them to take a long jump off a short pier … suggest Howth Harbour !

Become very, very suspicious whenever there is a use of, or reference to, the term ‘Substantial Compliance’ !!

CHECK the adequacy of this Detailed Schedule ! And … ensure that it is Comprehensive !!

4. The Necessary Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works

Demand to see Full Detailed Information, in the form of annotated drawings and descriptive texts, etc., etc … on the exact nature, timetable and phasing of all of the Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works which are necessary to effectively solve the serious problems in the Development.

Beware of decorative solutions, which look good to a superficial visual inspection in ambient conditions … but don’t actually solve anything !

CHECK the adequacy of this Full Detailed Information !

5. Independent Technical Control of Construction Works

Demand only Category A Construction Execution of the necessary Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works …

Category A Construction Execution:

(a) Supervision of the works is exercised by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel from the principal construction organization ;

(b) Regular inspections, by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel familiar with the design and independent of the construction organization(s) … and other vested interests … are carried out to verify that the works are being executed in accordance with the design.

Demand receipt of a clear undertaking, in writing, that this will be the case … before any Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works commence.

And remember these words from the 2005 Final Report of the U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) on the 9-11 World Trade Center Tower Collapses …

” NIST urges state and local agencies to rigorously enforce building codes and standards since such enforcement is critical to ensure the expected level of safety. Unless they are complied with, the best codes and standards cannot protect occupants, emergency responders, or buildings.”

CHECK the adequacy of the Proposed Method of Independent Technical Control during execution of the Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works !

6. Meeting & Discussion with Other Owners/Occupants

Do not act alone … meet the other Owners/Occupants, and discuss issues with them. Share and collate all available information together. Try to identify information gaps. If you do not understand something … ask !

When, and only when, you are happy … signal your Informed Consent that works should commence.

7. Commencement of Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works

Visit the Construction Site Office regularly … to show that you are taking a keen interest in what is happening. Keep your eyes and ears wide open.

Expect that you will not be permitted to just wander around the Site. Construction Sites are one of the most hazardous ‘workplaces’ in this country !

CHECK the adequacy of the Independent Technical Control actually being undertaken.

Demand to be updated, regularly, and at the very least on the progress of Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works at your Apartment … in the Common Areas of your Block … and throughout the full extent of the Approach Routes to your Block Entrances and Exits.

Advisory Note: Should you, or the Residents’ Committee of your Building or Development, be concerned about any matter discussed in this Post … please contact C.J. Walsh by e-mail: cjwalsh@sustainable-design.ie or by phone: (01) 8386078 / +353 1 8386078.

END (for now, but to be continued soon !)

Public Procurement & ‘Design for All’ – It’s Crunch Time, Folks !

Posted 2011-10-12 by CJ Walsh

2011-10-12 & 2011-10-17: Close your eyes … and imagine, for a split second, the value and material extent of all the Public Procurement Contracts being tendered for and awarded each week, throughout Europe. ‘Enormous’ is the only appropriate word which must spring to your mind ! If you don’t believe me, check out the statistics for yourself !! And that value is going to keep increasing !!!

The European Commission has recently proposed that suitable instruments be developed which will permit the operation of the Accessibility / Design for All Requirements in EU Public Procurement Directives to commence, with full effect. This process is proving to be problematic … and it is certainly not as open and transparent as it should be.

Leaving aside the utilities sectors (water, energy, transport and postal services) … recall that EU Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 31 March 2004, on the Co-Ordination of Procedures for the Award of Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts had to be implemented, at national level in all of the EU Member States, no later than 31 January 2006. This Directive was amended, in a minor way, by Directives 2005/51/EC and 2005/75/EC. In spite of these amendments, 31 January 2006 remained the target date for national implementation.

[ Ireland’s national implementing legislation … European Communities (Award of Public Authorities’ Contracts) Regulations 2006 … came into operation on 22 June 2006.]

In addition, each Member State had to ensure that Directive 2004/18/EC was properly implemented by using effective, available and transparent Monitoring Mechanisms.

With regard to specific rules governing specifications and contract documents … Article 23.1 of Directive 2004/18/EC stated, and still does state …

‘ The technical specifications as defined in point 1 of Annex VI shall be set out in the contract documentation, such as contract notices, contract documents or additional documents. Whenever possible these technical specifications should be defined so as to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users.’

Not the strongest possible language to encourage ‘accessibility’ … there’s nothing quite like a shall to concentrate minds !

[ However, in Ireland … with regard to the same specific rules governing specifications and contract documents … Section 23 (2) of the European Communities (Award of Public Authorities’ Contracts) Regulations 2006 states …

‘ In awarding a public contract, a contracting authority shall, as far as practicable, ensure that the technical specifications for the contract take account of the need to prescribe accessibility criteria for all persons who are likely to use the relevant works, products or service, particularly those who have disabilities.’ ]

As already discussed in my post, dated 2 November 2010 … many people in the European Union Institutions would prefer to steer completely away from the Social Aspects of Sustainable Human and Social Development … fuzzy areas, not capable of easy quantification … leaving small, peripheral groups in the Institutions (neither well connected to the mainstream, nor fully aware of the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of that mainstream) to look after the Social Aspects.

Public Procurement in the European Union (EU)

The Award of Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts concluded in the EU Member States on behalf of State, Regional or Local Authorities and other bodies governed by public law entities, is subject to the respect of Principles enshrined in the EU Treaties and, in particular, to …

the principle of freedom of movement of goods ;
the principle of freedom of establishment ;
the principle of freedom to provide services ; and
the principles deriving therefrom, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of mutual recognition, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency.

For Public Contracts Above A Certain Value … it has been deemed necessary to draw up provisions of Community Co-Ordination of National Procedures for the award of such contracts, which are based on these principles so as to ensure the effects of them and to guarantee the opening-up of public procurement to competition.

– Adapted from Preamble Paragraph #2, EU Directive 2004/18/EC

Is Europe Serious about Implementing the Public Procurement Accessibility / Design for All Requirements ?

Before looking at how Accessibility / Design for All is being handled within the fast evolving European Public Procurement Framework … it is sobering to compare and contrast how DG Environment (ENV), in the European Commission, is promoting and actively supporting Green Public Procurement, i.e. Public Procurement which is environment-friendly … http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm … no messing about there !

If we (speaking as a European) are serious, therefore, about the ‘real’ implementation of Accessibility for All / Design for All / Inclusive Design / Universal Design / Barrier-Free Design in the Built Environment … it is of fundamental importance that an easily assimilated Standard (as defined in Paragraph #2, ANNEX VI of Directive 2004/18/EC) be produced ‘on the table’ for reference by Public Contracting Authorities … NOW !!!

Built Environment: Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention in the natural environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, service utilities, transport systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, and seas, etc … including the Virtual Environment.

Virtual Environment: A designed environment, electronically generated from within the built environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.

The Built and Virtual Environments continue to merge into a new Augmented Reality.

A comprehensive document capable of answering a major portion of Europe’s current needs in this area is on the verge of being published as a full International Standard … ISO 21542: ‘Building Construction – Accessibility & Usability of the Built Environment’. And … as is the case with hundreds of ISO Standards in other sectors, this standard could easily be approved by CEN, one of Europe’s Standards Organisations, as an EN (European Standard) … under the Vienna Agreement on Technical Co-Operation between ISO and CEN, which was confirmed by both organizations in 2001 … and the period to practical application of ISO 21542 on the ground would be relatively swift.

Every delay represents not only a precious opportunity missed to improve the Accessibility of the Built Environment … but another blatant Denial of Human and Social Rights to vulnerable groups of people in all our communities !

Yes, this document was badly managed at the beginning of its very long gestation period, and its contents were a bit of a mess for the first few years … AND European countries were indignant, then, at the prospect of it becoming a European Standard. However, walking around any major city in any country in Europe today, and witnessing the universally appalling and miserable efforts at Accessibility Implementation … you would have to be outraged at the level of hypocrisy and blatant self-delusion practiced by Europeans !

BUT NOW … ISO FDIS 21542 … the Final Draft of the International Standard which was issued for voting, beginning on 22 September 2011 … is a very respectable looking document altogether. It makes important statements about ‘creating a sustainable built environment which is accessible’. Its purpose is ‘to define how the built environment should be designed, constructed and managed to enable people to approach, enter, use, egress from and evacuate a building independently, in an equitable and dignified manner and to the greatest extent possible’ … ‘principles which are supported by Preamble (g) and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’. I could go on, and on … but I will resist the temptation, since I was heavily involved in the development of this ISO Standard !

The point is … there is no longer any reason for European countries to complain about the inadequacy of this International Standard … and it should be the preferred instrument of choice to facilitate the immediate operation of the Accessibility / Design for All Requirements in EU Public Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC.

Unfortunately, this may not happen !

Years too late, near the end of 2007 … DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (EMPL), in the European Commission, issued the following Mandate …

M/420 EN – Brussels, 21 December 2007

Standardization Mandate 420 to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in Support of European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement in the Built Environment

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (67.4 kb)

This Mandate covers 2 Phases of Work. Phase I deals with compiling an inventory of existing accessibility-related standards and an analysis of any gaps … as well as with issues of accessibility implementation monitoring and conformity assessment. Phase II is the actual accessibility standard(s) development phase.

However … Mandate M/420 EN is a flawed document, and it should have received much closer scrutiny from the European Standards Organizations named in the document title … before any work in Phase I commenced. Failing that … the first work item on the Phase I Agenda should certainly have been a critical examination of the mandate.

In a post, dated 15 January 2011 … I wrote …

” The European Union’s Accessibility Strategy, related Policies and Programmes … and the monitoring, targeting and independent verification of Accessibility Implementation … all require a radical overhaul !

All those Officials in the European Commission who are involved, in any way, shape or form, with Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ would do well to RE-READ AND MEDITATE DEEPLY on the contents of the 2003 Final Report from the Group of Accessibility Experts, which was established by the European Commission itself … “

The Final Report from the 2003 EU Group of Accessibility Experts, of which I was a Member, can be downloaded towards the end of that post.

The Officials who drafted Commission Mandate M/420 EN paid little, if any, attention to that 2003 Expert Group Report.

At the end of Phase I … in response to the European Commission’s Mandate M/420 EN … a long, rambling CEN Joint Report (document ref. CEN/BT/WG 207 N 29) of 425 Pages was issued, dated 8 August 2011, for general discussion and comment.

Some Comments on the CEN Joint Report …

1. Terminology

CEN Joint Report – CEN/BT/WG 207 N 29

3.4 Conclusions View, Findings and Recommendations

3.4.1 Overview

Terms such as ‘procurement’, ‘inclusion’, ‘accessibility’ and ‘compliance’ are difficult to define precisely, and they are often not fully understood by those responsible for managing or providing the products or environments people use. They are also not readily understood by those administrating and triggering the procurement process.

It is strange, therefore … and unacceptable … that this Report does not attempt to reduce and/or remove the ambiguity surrounding these terms … by providing a clear definition, with a supporting explanatory text, for each of the terms listed above.

I’m not even sure that the large numbers of people who helped to draft the CEN Joint Report fully understand those terms !

Most importantly, the Report is not at all precise about … and in fact appears to be completely confused by … the clear distinction which must be made between ‘accessibility’ and ‘access’.

2. ‘Accessibility’ & UN CRPD

Accessibility does not begin and end with Article 9 of the United Nations 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) !!! See my post, dated 15 January 2011 … and #6 below.

3. EU Ratification of UN CRPD

The full implications arising from European Union (EU) Ratification, on 23 December 2010, of the United Nations 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) … for both EU Institutions, and the EU Member States (whether or not they have individually ratified the UN Convention) … have not been properly examined in the CEN Joint Report.

See my post, dated 5 February 2011 .

4. Mainstreaming ‘Accessibility’

For the majority of people involved in the spatial planning, design and development of the European Built Environment, Accessibility is all about transport issues … for example, how far a proposed new building is from a transportation node.

We are communicating such a confused message (is it Accessibility for All, Design for All, Inclusive Design, Universal Design, or Barrier-Free Design ?) … that many policy and decision makers just could not be bothered. And who, in Europe, is really concerned with the quality of Accessibility Implementation ???

In addition … the CEN Joint Report neglected to deal adequately … or at all … with a major body of EU Legislation which has been implemented at national level, in the Member States, many years ago … Safety at Work Legislation ! All of the EU Directives require that workplaces be accessible. Yet, I know for a fact that, in Ireland, the Health & Safety Authority (HSA) is doing absolutely nothing to check whether this requirement is being complied with or not.

A Sustainable Built Environment is Accessible for All ! So many different types of International/European/National Legislation mandate that the Built Environment shall be Accessible for All !! Good Design demands that the Built Environment is Accessible for All !!!

So why is Accessibility not being properly integrated into the operation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Legislation ?

No case need be made for the integration of Accessibility into Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) … it self-evidently must be !

Sustainability Impact Assessment: A continual evaluation and optimization process – informing initial decision-making, or design, and shaping activity/product/service realization, useful life and termination, or final disposal – of the interrelated positive and negative social, environmental, economic, institutional, political and legal impacts on balanced and equitable implementation of Sustainable Human and Social Development.

5. What Is The Overriding European Social Priority ?

The overriding European Social Priority is to commence operation, with full effect, of the Accessibility / Design for All Requirements within the fast evolving European Public Procurement Framework … as quickly as possible.

Do we have to wait another 2 or 3 years, at least, for the production of an ‘acceptable’ European Accessibility Standard ?? Instead, why not approve ISO 21542 as the European Standard when it is published as a full standard … which will be very soon ? ISO 21542 is already being used as the benchmark in the CEN Joint Report !

AND … do we have to wait, for who knows how long … before Effective Monitoring Procedures … and Independent Verification Procedures … are put in place at European and National/Regional/Local Levels ???

Quality of European Accessibility Implementation … is critical !

2011-10-17 …

6. Post UN CRPD – A More Demanding Scope & Quality of Implementation

Not unexpected … but it has still been a most enlightening experience to read the recent UN CRPD Committee Report on Spain … selected extracts from which are reproduced below. The language used by the Committee is strong and direct … finally !

This is not a good report and, in places, it makes for unpleasant reading … a concrete example of the ‘hypocrisy and blatant self-delusion practiced by Europeans’, which I talked about earlier.

In accordance with Article 36.3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) … the UN Secretary-General will be making this Report available to all States Parties.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Sixth Session – 19 to 23 September 2011

Concluding Observations on Initial Report of Spain

(Article 35 of UN CRPD)

The Committee considered the initial report of Spain (CRPD/C/ESP/1) at its 56th and 57th meetings, held on 20 September 2011, and adopted the following concluding observations at its 62nd meeting, held on 23 September 2011.

III. Principal Areas of Concern & Recommendations

A. General Principles & Obligations (Articles 1 & 4)

11. The Committee takes note of the adoption of Act 26/2011 which introduces the concept of ‘person with disabilities’ as defined in the Convention and expands the protection of persons with disabilities. However, it is concerned that not all persons with disabilities are covered by the law.

12. The Committee urges the State Party to ensure that all persons with disabilities enjoy protection against discrimination and have access to equal opportunities irrespective of their level of disability.

13. The Committee welcomes Act 49/2007, dated 26 December 2007, establishing the Permanent Specialized Office to deal with offences and sanctions in equal opportunities, non-discrimination and universal accessibility by persons with disabilities. However, it is concerned by the slow development and lack of promotion of this arbitration system at the regional government level; by the lack of information on the number of sanctions submitted and resolved; and by the failure of the State Party to report on actions undertaken to implement this law. The Committee is concerned about the overall effectiveness of the system.

14. The Committee recommends that the State Party raise awareness among persons with disabilities about the system of arbitration; increase the level of free legal aid; and ensure the regulation of offences and sanctions at the regional government level.

15. The Committee regrets the lack of information on the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations at the regional level in designing, and evaluating the implementation of legislation, policy and decision-making processes; and the participation of children with disabilities at all levels.

16. The Committee recommends that the State Party take specific measures to: ensure the active participation of persons with disabilities in public decision-making processes at the regional level; and to include children with disabilities at all levels.

17. The Committee takes note of Act 2/2010 of 3 March 2010 on sexual and reproductive health decriminalizing voluntary termination of pregnancy, allowing pregnancy to be terminated up to 14 weeks and including two specific cases in which abortion is allowed for longer time limits due to the fact that the foetus has a disability: until 22 weeks of gestation, provided there is ‘a risk of serious anomalies in the foetus’, and beyond week 22 when, inter alia, ‘an extremely serious and incurable illness is detected in the foetus’. It also notes the explanations provided by the State Party for maintaining this distinction.

18. The Committee recommends that the State Party abolish the distinction made in Act 2/2010 in the period allowed under law within which a pregnancy can be terminated, based solely on disability.

B. Specific Rights (Articles 5-30)

Equality and non-discrimination (Article 5)

19. The Committee welcomes the adoption of Act 26/2011 amending regulations which will abolish the need to have a disability certificate to bring a discrimination claim before a judicial body. However, it regrets the lack of information on cases of discrimination, and it is concerned that persons with disabilities will still be marginalized. The Committee is further concerned by the lack of information on reasonable accommodation. It is also concerned that in practice disability affects parents’ guardianship or custody of their children and that legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of disability is not enforceable in cases of discrimination due to perceived disability or association with a person with a disability.

20. The Committee urges the State Party to expand the protection of discrimination on the grounds of disability to explicitly cover multiple disability, perceived disability and association with a person with a disability, and to ensure the protection from denial of reasonable accommodation, as a form of discrimination, regardless of the level of disability. Moreover guidance, awareness raising and training should be given to ensure a better comprehension by all stakeholders, including persons with disabilities, of the concept of reasonable accommodation and prevention of discrimination.

Article 8 – Awareness-Raising

25. The Committee commends the many initiatives taken by the State Party to implement the Convention. However, it notes that more needs to be done to increase awareness in society, in the media and amongst persons with disabilities themselves of the right of persons with disabilities.

26. The Committee calls upon the State Party to take proactive measures to enhance awareness of the Convention and its Optional Protocol at all levels, in particular among the judiciary and the legal profession, political parties, Parliament and Government officials, civil society, media, persons with disabilities, as well as the general public.

Article 9 – Accessibility

27. The Committee takes note that Act 26/2011 amends regulations which will shorten the timelines for meeting accessibility requirements in public facilities; and goods and services available to the public. However, it remains concerned at the low level of compliance with these requirements, in particular, at regional and local levels, in the private sector, and in relation to existing facilities. The Committee is aware of situations of discrimination faced by air passengers with disabilities, including situations of denial of boarding. The Committee reminds the State Party that Article 9 of the Convention also demands access to information and communication.

28. The Committee recommends that sufficient financial and human resources be allocated as soon as possible to implement, promote and monitor compliance with accessibility legislation through national measures as well as through international cooperation.

Article 11 – Situations of Risk & Humanitarian Emergencies

31. The Committee is concerned at the insufficiency of specific protocols for persons with disabilities in emergency situations.

32. The Committee calls upon the State Party to review its laws and policies related to emergency situations with a view to including provisions guaranteeing the security and protection of persons with disabilities.

[ My Comment: This is a gross understatement of a serious problem which continues to fester not only in Spain but, more generally, in Europe ! ]

Article 19 – Living Independently & Being Included in the Community

39. The Committee is concerned at the lack of resources and services to guarantee the right to live independently and to be included in the community, in particular in rural areas. It is further concerned that the choice of residence of persons with disabilities is limited by the availability of the necessary services, and that those living in residential institutions are reported to have no alternative to institutionalization. Finally, the Committee is concerned about linking eligibility of social services to a specific grade of disability.

40. The Committee encourages the State Party to ensure that an adequate level of funding is made available to effectively enable persons with disabilities to: enjoy the freedom to choose their residence on an equal basis with others; access a full range of in-home, residential and other community services for daily life, including personal assistance; and to enjoy reasonable accommodation so as to better integrate into their communities.

41. The Committee is concerned that the law for the promotion of autonomy limits the resources to hire personal assistants only to those persons who have level 3 disabilities and only for education and work.

42. The Committee encourages the State Party to expand resources for personal assistants for all persons with disabilities in accordance with their requirements.

Article 24 – Education

43. The Committee welcomes the fact that the principle of inclusion governs the schooling of pupils with special educational needs; that discrimination in education is prohibited; and that most children with disabilities are included in the regular education system. It commends the enactment of Organic Act 2/2006 on Education, which obliges the education authorities to provide specialist teachers, qualified professionals and the necessary materials and resources, as well as the laws that oblige schools to make necessary curricular adjustments and diversifications for pupils with disabilities. However, the Committee is concerned by the implementation of these laws in practice, in view of reported cases of failure to provide reasonable accommodation, of continued segregation and exclusion, of financial arguments used as justification for discrimination, and of the cases of children enrolled in special education against their parents’ will. The Committee notes with concern that parents challenging the placement of their children with disabilities in special education have no possibility of appeal and that their only alternative is to educate them at their own expense or pay for the reasonable accommodation of their child in the regular education system.

44. The Committee reiterates that denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination and the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is immediately applicable and not subject to progressive realisation. It recommends the State Party to:

(a) Increase its efforts to provide reasonable accommodation in education, allocating sufficient financial and human resources to implement the right to inclusive education; paying particular attention to assessing the availability of teachers with specialist qualifications; and ensuring that educational departments of local governments understand their obligations under the Convention and act in conformity with its provisions ;

(b) Ensure that the decisions to place children with a disability in a special school or in special classes, or to offer them solely a reduced standard curriculum, are taken in consultation with the parents ;

(c) Ensure that the parents of children with disabilities are not obliged to pay for the education or for the measures of reasonable accommodation in mainstream schools ;

(d) Ensure that decisions on placing children in segregated settings can be appealed swiftly and effectively.

C. Specific Obligations (Articles 31-33)

Statistics and data collection (Article 31)

49. The Committee regrets the low level of disaggregated data on persons with disabilities. The Committee recalls that such information is indispensable to: understanding the situations of specific groups of persons with disabilities in the State Party who may be subject to varying degrees of vulnerability; developing laws, policies and programmes adapted to their situations; and assessing the implementation of the Convention.

50. The Committee recommends that the State party systematize the collection, analysis and dissemination of data, disaggregated by sex, age and disability; enhance capacity building in this regard; and develop gender-sensitive indicators to support legislative developments, policymaking and institutional strengthening for monitoring and reporting on progress made with regard to the implementation of the various provisions of the Convention.

51. The Committee regrets that the situation of children with disabilities is not reflected in the data on the protection of children.

52. The Committee recommends that the State Party systematically collect, analyse and disseminate data, disaggregated by sex, age and disability, on abuse and violence against children.

END

Remembering Dr. Ernesto ‘EL CHE’ Guevara de la Serna Lynch

Posted 2011-10-10 by CJ Walsh

Update 2020-04-07: ‘El Che’ Memorial Stamp – Issued by An Post, Ireland. 2017.

Colour photograph of the ‘El Che’ Memorial Stamp, issued by An Post (Ireland’s National Postal Service), in October 2017 … to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Che Guevara’s Assassination by United States/CIA and Bolivian Soldiers in the remote village of La Higuera, Bolivia. This iconic image of Che is based on a Jim Fitzpatrick Poster which, in turn, was based on a 1960 Photograph* taken by Alberto Korda (Alberto Díaz Gutiérrez). Photograph of stamp by CJ Walsh. 2020-04-07. Click to enlarge.

* On Friday, 4 March, 1960, a ship exploded in Havana Harbour, killing more than a hundred workers and injuring many more, including passers-by who rushed to offer help. The vessel ‘La Coubre’ was loaded with tonnes of weapons which had been bought in Belgium by the Cuban Government and secretly transported to the Caribbean.

Korda would later recall his magical ‘Che’ shutter experience: “At the foot of a podium decorated in mourning after the tragic explosion, I had my eye to the viewfinder of my old Leica Camera. I was focusing on Fidel and the people around him. Suddenly, through the 90mm lens, Che emerged above me. I was surprised by his gaze. By sheer reflex I shot twice, horizontally and vertically. I didn’t have time to take a third photo as Che stepped back discreetly into the second row. It all happened in a few seconds.”

Korda called this image ‘Guerrillero Heroico’ ; the Che who appeared in it was a human being who was shocked and angry (at such a brazen attack by the United States/CIA in the heart of Havana, so damaging to the Revolution) and mournful (after so many deaths in the explosion).

2011-10-10: Yesterday, did anyone remember the myth that is … and the man of Latin America that was … Dr. Ernesto ‘EL CHE’ Guevara de la Serna Lynch … assassinated on 9 October 1967, in Bolivia ??

Colour photograph showing a framed head and shoulders of the young Dr. Ernesto 'CHE' Guevara de la Serna Lynch in a small museum in the central square of Yara (Plaza Grito de Yara), Cuba. Centuries earlier, nearby, the Indian hero Hatuey was burned at the stake. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-10. Click to enlarge. — Colour photograph showing a framed head and shoulders of the young Dr. Ernesto ‘CHE’ Guevara de la Serna Lynch in a small museum in the central square of Yara (Plaza Grito de Yara), Cuba. Centuries earlier, nearby, the Indian hero Hatuey was burned at the stake. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-10. Click to enlarge.

Dr. Che Guevara addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York, 11 December 1964 …

English Translation: https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/12/11.htm

Colour photograph showing the memorial in Plaza de la Revolución, Santa Clara, Cuba ... built to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Battle for Santa Clara. Unveiled on 28 December 1988, it was designed by the Architect Jorge Cao Campos and the Sculptor José Delarra. The memorial complex also comprises the mausoleum of Che Guevara and a museum. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-14. Click to enlarge. — Colour photograph showing the memorial in Plaza de la Revolución, Santa Clara, Cuba … built to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Battle for Santa Clara. Unveiled on 28 December 1988, it was designed by the Architect Jorge Cao Campos and the Sculptor José Delarra. The memorial complex also comprises the mausoleum of Che Guevara and a museum. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-14. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing a hoarding on the roof of a building in Cienfuegos, Cuba ... which comprises an image of CHE, with the accompanying text "Tu Ejemplo Vive - Tus Ideas Perduran". Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge. — Colour photograph showing a hoarding on the roof of a building in Cienfuegos, Cuba … which comprises an image of CHE, with the accompanying text: ‘Tu Ejemplo Vive – Tus Ideas Perduran’ (Your Example Lives – Your Ideas Last). Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

END

#ErnestoCheGuevara #ElChe #Bolivia #Assassination #USA #CIA #GuerrilleroHeroico #SantaClara #Cuba #HastaLaVictoriaSiempre #LaHiguera #Revolution #Ireland #CheMemorialStamp

Check Now for Child Safe Window Blinds & Other Coverings !

Posted 2011-09-28 by CJ Walsh

2011-09-27: A recent child fatality in Ireland has alerted our population to the common danger of Window Blinds, Shades and Other Window Coverings which are not Child Safe.

Colour photograph showing a small child reaching for the control wand of a Vertical Window Blind in familiar surroundings, for example, at home. This is just one of a range of Child Safe Window Covering Solutions.

In Ireland … our Consumer Protection Laws are weak … our National Consumer Protection Organizations are even weaker … and the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) is under-resourced, and not fit for purpose.

In the European Union (EU) … a work programme, having the aim of eliminating the risk of strangulation and internal asphyxiation due to child accessible window covering cords and small parts, only commenced in the early part of 2011. Refer to this Page on the WebSite of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers (DG SANCO) … http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dyna/enews/enews.cfm?al_id=1109

HOWEVER, back on 15 December 2009 … the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued the following Press Release …

CPSC Announces Voluntary Recalls to Repair Millions of Roman Shades and Roll-Up Blinds by Multiple Firms

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is announcing that multiple firms are recalling millions of units of Window coverings, including Roman shades and roll-up blinds. These window coverings present a serious risk of strangulation to young children.

Colour photograph showing a common type of Window Blind, in Europe, which has caused Child Fatalities.

CPSC has received reports of five deaths and 16 near-strangulations in Roman shades since 2006, and three deaths in roll-up blinds since 2001. Strangulations in Roman shades occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the back side of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her neck. Strangulations in roll-up blinds occur when the lifting loop slides off the side of the blind and a child’s neck becomes entangled on the free-standing loop or if a child places his/her neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material.

The recalled Roman shades and roll-up blinds were sold by a variety of manufacturers and retailers, including major discount department stores, home improvement stores and window covering manufacturers and retailers. Remedies vary among firms from repair kits to refunds.

“Parents need to make sure there are no accessible cords on the front, side, or back of their window coverings”, said CPSC Chairperson Inez Tenenbaum. “Avoid these deadly dangers by getting the repair kit or installing cordless window coverings in all homes where small children live or visit.”

To help prevent child strangulation in window coverings, CPSC and the Window Covering Safety Council urge parents and caregivers to follow these guidelines:

Examine all shades and blinds in the home. Make sure there are no accessible cords on the front, side or back of the product. CPSC recommends the use of cordless window coverings in all homes where children live or visit.
Do not place cribs, beds and furniture close to windows with corded window coverings because children can climb on them and gain access to the cords.
Make loose cords inaccessible.
If the window shade has looped bead chains or nylon cords, install tension devices to keep the cord taut.

A Table at the end of the CPSC Press Release (15 December 2009) indicated that IKEA was ‘voluntarily’ recalling 3,360,000 Roman Shades, Roller Blinds and Roll-Up Blinds from its stores, nationwide in the USA. Don’t worry … I blinked, and then re-checked that number !

What has IKEA done in its stores, continent wide in Europe ??

END

Buildings & Firefighters Not Yet Safer ! – 10 Years After 9-11 (II)

Posted 2011-09-20 by CJ Walsh

2011-09-20: Continuing on from where I left off on 11 September 2011 …

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

Ar C.J. Walsh Technical Blog – Registered Architect, Fire Engineer & Independent Technical/Building Controller …… International Expert on Accessibility for All (including Fire Safety) + 'Real' Sustainability Implementation !

sustainable design

Remembering Dr. Ernesto ‘EL CHE’ Guevara de la Serna Lynch

Check Now for Child Safe Window Blinds & Other Coverings !

Search This Blog

Music While You Browse

Archive Since 2008

Links

Post Categorization

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta