Accessible Fire Engineering

EU Sustainable vs. Green Public Procurement – Beware !

Posted by CJ Walsh

2010-11-02:  For a long, long time … too long … I have been bleating on about the major and substantial difference between Sustainable Design and Green Design … or ‘Sustainability’ and ‘Green-ness’.  See my previous Posts.

This bores me no end !

HOWEVER … there are some serious implications if this difference is not properly understood … particularly by individuals, groups or organizations attempting to advance the Application of Criteria which address Social and/or Ethical Concerns within, for example, the European Union’s Public Procurement Framework … or the EU’s Construction Product Framework.

The following is a nice little example of exactly what I am talking about … explained by no less an authority than the Directorate General for Environment in the European Commission itself … on its very own Public Procurement WebPage at  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm … as viewed, by me, on 2010-09-12 …

[ For a moment, let’s just overlook the simplistic and crude ‘three pillars’ understanding of Sustainable Development.  See my previous Posts.]

Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP) … means that public authorities seek to achieve the appropriate balance between the three pillars of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – when procuring goods, services or works at all stages of the project.

Green Public Procurement (GPP) … means that public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured.

Practical Differences Between SPP & GPP !

GPP is often more easily accommodated than SPP within the existing legal and practical framework of procurement.  Green requirements can be included in technical or performance-based specifications for products, services and works.  Provided the conditions set out in the ‘Helsinki Bus’ and ‘Wienstrom’ Cases, and Evropaïki Dynamiki vs. European Environment Agency (EEA) … are met, green award criteria can also be applied (further information on these cases is available at  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/case_law_en.htm).

The application of Criteria aimed at addressing Social or Ethical Concerns can be more difficult in the context of regulated public procurement procedures.  Public authorities are specifically empowered to include social requirements in their conditions for the performance of contracts or to reserve certain contracts for performance by sheltered workshops or employment programmes (Articles 26 and 19 of Directive 2004/18/EC respectively).

.

My Note:  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.

[ For another moment, let’s just overlook the unfortunate use of disability-related language … which fails, utterly, to take account of the 2001 World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF).  See my previous Posts.]

Article 19 – Reserved Contracts

Member States may reserve the right to participate in public contract award procedures to sheltered workshops or provide for such contracts to be performed in the context of sheltered employment programmes where most of the employees concerned are handicapped persons who, by reason of the nature or the seriousness of their disabilities, cannot carry on occupations under normal conditions.

The contract notice shall make reference to this provision.

Article 26 – Conditions for Performance of Contracts

Contracting authorities may lay down special conditions relating to the performance of a contract, provided that these are compatible with Community law and are indicated in the contract notice or in the specifications.  The conditions governing the performance of a contract may, in particular, concern social and environmental considerations.

ANNEX VI – Definition of Certain Technical Specifications

For the purposes of this Directive:

1. (a)  ‘technical specification’, in the case of public works contracts, means the totality of the technical prescriptions contained in particular in the tender documents, defining the characteristics required of a material, product or supply, which permits a material, a product or a supply to be described in a manner such that it fulfils the use for which it is intended by the contracting authority.  These characteristics shall include levels of environmental performance, design for all requirements (including accessibility for disabled persons) and conformity assessment, performance, safety or dimensions, including the procedures concerning quality assurance, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking and labelling and production processes and methods.  They shall also include rules relating to design and costing, the test, inspection and acceptance conditions for works and methods or techniques of construction and all other technical conditions which the contracting authority is in a position to prescribe, under general or specific regulations, in relation to the finished works and to the materials or parts which they involve ;

    (b)  ‘technical specification’, in the case of public supply or service contracts, means a specification in a document defining the required characteristics of a product or a service, such as quality levels, environmental performance levels, design for all requirements (including accessibility for disabled persons) and conformity assessment, performance, use of the product, safety or dimensions, including requirements relevant to the product as regards the name under which the product is sold, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking and labelling, user instructions, production processes and methods and conformity assessment procedures ;

2.  ‘standard’ means a technical specification approved by a recognised standardising body for repeated or continuous application, compliance with which is not compulsory and which falls into one of the following categories:

–  International Standard: a standard adopted by an international standards organisation and made available to the general public ;

–  European Standard: a standard adopted by a European standards organisation and made available to the general public ;

–  National Standard: a standard adopted by a national standards organisation and made available to the general public.

.

In order for a Criterion … any Criterion … to be acceptable within the European Union’s Public Procurement Framework, it should be expressly linked to the subject matter of the Contract … should be specific … and should be capable of objective verification.

Beware !!

.

.

END

Dublin IFE Fire Conference – Sustainable Fire Engineering !

Posted by CJ Walsh

2010-10-18:  Nothing less than a complete Paradigm Shift to Sustainable Fire Engineering is now needed … because it is Necessary … because it is Inevitable … because it is The Future !!!

This process will not proceed, however, unless the International Fire Science & Engineering Community begins to communicate and engage, meaningfully, with the Mainstream Construction Sector … where this process is already well advanced.

One Organization in our community has recently decided to bite the bullet … CIB (International Council for Research & Innovation in Building & Construction) … where Working Commission 14 (W14) – ‘Fire Safety’ … agreed, at a meeting in Zurich, to significantly expand and elaborate its own Scope … please note the keywords in bold text …

A CIB Working Commission … W14 is an international, multi-stakeholder, trans-disciplinary, pre-normalization forum for discussion, and action, on research and innovation in Fire Science and Engineering for the design, construction and operation of a Safe and Sustainable Built Environment.

.

Colour image showing the Title Page of CJ Walsh's Presentation at the Institution of Fire Engineers (Ireland Branch) Annual Fire Conference ... which will be held on Wednesday, 20th October 2010, in Dublin. Click to enlarge.
Colour image showing the Title Page of CJ Walsh’s Presentation at the Institution of Fire Engineers (Ireland Branch) Annual Fire Conference … which will be held on Wednesday, 20th October 2010, in Dublin. Click to enlarge.

.

This will be my important message on Wednesday next, 20th October 2010, when I address the Institution of Fire Engineers (Ireland Branch) Annual Fire Conference … which will be held in the Dublin Fire Brigade Training Centre, Marino, Dublin 1 … beginning at 09.30 hrs in the morning.

Institution of Fire Engineers (Ireland Branch)

2010 IFE Annual Fire Conference Brochure

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (326kb)

.

Three Powerful Pulling Forces for Change … or should I say Dragging Forces, with a lot of kicking and screaming involved (!) … will have a direct impact …

1.  Sustainable Design

The interior view shown below is not that of a Sustainable Building … but of a Modern Architectural Icon, designed by the Master Architect Mies van der Rohe towards the end of the 1920’s … way back in the last century !   Two innovative architectural concepts are elegantly illustrated in the photograph …

  • Open Planning – one space ‘flows’ into the next without interruption by a physical barrier … drawing the eye and encouraging movement.  In this particular building … a building of architectural, cultural and historical importance … any attempt to impose ‘fire compartmentation’ on the layout would be utterly ridiculous !
  • Separation of Building Structure & Fabric – notice the column in the foreground.  This is quite unlike the massive form of building construction in the past !

.

Colour photograph showing an Interior View of the Barcelona Pavilion, designed by the German Architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in 1929. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2009-03-20. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing an Interior View of the Barcelona Pavilion, designed by the German Architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in 1929. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2009-03-20. Click to enlarge.

.

Fire Engineering is still trying to grapple … unsuccessfully … with innovative approaches, dating from the early part of the 20th Century, to Architectural Design.  In the 21st Century, Sustainable Design – not Green Design – involves a far more radical approach to Design, the use of Building Materials, and Construction.  In the face of this much greater challenge, Fire Engineering must begin to respond effectively … with creativity and imagination.  There is no other alternative !

.

2.  Cul-de-Sac of Current Fire Engineering

Working in Building Control at the time … I encountered the Typical Building Detail shown below in an early 1990’s Dublin Hotel Extension Project … comprising a 10 metre span steel beam … with non-loadbearing steel stud partitioning beneath, separating a corridor from bedrooms … each with 1 Hour’s Fire Resistance.  During a fire and long before the period of 1 Hour has elapsed … that steel beam will have deflected by a considerable dimension.  What happens, then, to the non-loadbearing steel stud partition, below, and its fire resistance performance ???   This makes no sense.

Does current Fire Engineering have a robust rational and empirical basis … or is it just one remove from Voodoo and Witchcraft ??

Black and white 'concept' drawing, with a small touch of colour, showing a typical detail in an early 1990's Dublin Hotel Extension Project ... of a 10 metre span steel beam ... with non-loadbearing steel stud partitioning beneath, separating a corridor from bedrooms ... each with 1 hour's fire resistance ?!? Drawn by CJ Walsh.
Black and white ‘concept’ drawing, with a small touch of colour, showing a typical detail in an early 1990’s Dublin Hotel Extension Project … of a 10 metre span steel beam … with non-loadbearing steel stud partitioning beneath, separating a corridor from bedrooms … each with 1 hour’s fire resistance ?!? Drawn by CJ Walsh.

.

3.  NIST(USA) Recommendations on the 9-11 WTC Building Collapses

Determined resistance by Vested Interests … a Lack of Institutional Capacity, i.e. failure to be able to properly anticipate, or to be adequately prepared, and/or to respond effectively and in a timely manner to major fire incidents … and a small element of the ‘Issue Attention Cycle’, where considerable investment in time and resources were necessary to make real progress on the issues thrown up by 9-11 but, unfortunately, governmental and public attention soon waned and dissipated … shifting to new problems, e.g. the Illegal Iraq ‘Crusade’ … have all contributed to a situation where there has been little in the way of substantive implementation of the Recommendations contained in the 2005 and 2008 NIST(USA) Reports on the 9-11 WTC Buildings 1, 2 & 7 Collapses … in the United States of America, Europe … or anywhere else.

.

Colour photograph of the World Trade Center Complex in New York, taken at the time of the 2nd Plane Impact during the morning of Tuesday, 11th September 2001. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph of the World Trade Center Complex in New York, taken at the time of the 2nd Plane Impact during the morning of Tuesday, 11th September 2001. Click to enlarge.

.

That is not our approach, here, at FireOx International – the Fire Engineering Division of Sustainable Design International Ltd.  Instead, we have decided to present all of the NIST Recommendations … to our readers … in a Series of Posts on this Technical Blog.

Sustainable Fire Engineering HAS a robust rational and empirical basis !

.

.

END

Evacuation Chair Devices – Fire Engineering for All in Buildings ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

2010-06-06:  This post has been running around in the back of my mind for quite some time … and I know now, for far too long !   But recently, my patience with certain manufacturers and suppliers of evacuation chair devices has reached its limit.

In relation to Building Users … previous posts have examined the technical term: Place of Safety (see the post dated 2009-10-24) … and why this concept is an essential starting point in the development of any practical … and comprehensive … fire engineering strategy for a building.

Previous posts have also explored the complex issue of Areas of Rescue Assistance in a building (see posts dated 2009-03-10 & 2009-03-17).

For the purposes of this discussion, now, a clear statement of Fire Engineering Design Objectives is required … 

  1. Evacuation for All Building Users … with an assurance of health, safety and welfare protection during the course of that evacuation.
  2. Sustain Building Serviceability during Evacuation … at the very least, while people are waiting in Areas of Rescue Assistance … and, until all of those people can be rescued by Firefighters and can reach a Place of Safety.

.

We are rapidly approaching the day when all lifts/elevators in a building must be capable of being used during the course of a fire incident.  AND … these lifts/elevators must be situated so that … alternative, safe and intuitive means of evacuation … are effectively presented to all building users.

Greedy vested interests continue to impede the onset of that inevitable day.

Another surprising barrier to the implementation of this goal, however, is the sloppy and incompetent drafting of fire engineering design standards and codes of practice.  Previous posts have discussed … and shown … some of the serious problems with British Standard BS 9999 – Code of Practice for Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings (2008).

A ‘Restricted’ Architectural Vocabulary is yet another barrier to implementation.  High-Rise and/or Complex Buildings are still typically being designed for Access … not Evacuation !   This fault very definitely lies with the architectural and engineering schools throughout Europe.

.

Until all lifts/elevators in a building are capable of being used during the course of a fire incident … there is an obvious and pressing need for a fire engineering design solution which involves the installation, maintenance and proper use of Approved Fire Evacuation Chair Devices … which need to be powered or manual depending upon the particular circumstances in a building !

AND, even when all lifts/elevators are capable of being used during the course of a fire incident … because lifts/elevators must always undergo routine servicing and maintenance and they will not, therefore, be in operation for short periods of time … there will still be an obvious need for Approved Fire Evacuation Chair Devices.  So, these fire-evacuation related products should never be regarded as a wasted investment !

I have repeated the word ‘Approved’ because, unfortunately, since these are also disability related products … insufficient attention, and emphasis, is given to Product Approval in this Market Sector, i.e. showing that the product is ‘fit for its intended use, in the location of use’.

At the most basic level imaginable … National Building Regulations in the European Union Member States, and E.U. Safety at Work and Product Liability Legislation … all demand Product Approval.

.

Performance Requirements for Fire Evacuation Chair Devices:  Fire Evacuation Chair Devices, powered or manual, must be capable of …

  • being safely and easily operated ;
  • carrying people of large weight (150 Kg minimum) ;
  • going down staircases which, in existing buildings of historical, architectural and cultural importance, may be narrow and of unusual shape ;
  • travelling long distances horizontally … in a robust and stable manner … both within a building … and externally, perhaps over rough ground … in order to reach a Place of Safety.

When going up a staircase is necessary in order to reach a Place of Safety, a powered evacuation chair device must be provided !

.

Fire Evacuation Staircases:  A vivid image, with a few accompanying words, are necessary …

Unlike the incredible scene shown in the colour photograph above ... Fire Evacuation Staircases must be suitable for Safe, Intuitive and Unhampered Building User Evacuation, Firefighter Contraflow and the Assisted Evacuation of People with Activity Limitations. A Minimum Clear Width of 1.5 Metres (from edge of handrail to edge of handrail !) is required. Click to enlarge.
Unlike the incredible scene shown in the colour photograph above ... Fire Evacuation Staircases must be suitable for Safe, Intuitive and Unhampered Building User Evacuation, Firefighter Contraflow and the Assisted Evacuation of People with Activity Limitations. A Minimum Clear Width of 1.5 Metres (from edge of handrail to edge of handrail !) is required. Click to enlarge.

.

Fire Evacuation Chair Devices & What To Avoid:  Can you spot the Evacuation Chair Device in the first photograph below ?

Colour photograph showing a Fire Evacuation Chair Device Installation at Dublin Airport, Ireland. On so many levels and in so many ways, this 'decorative' installation ... intended to demonstrate that an organization is complying with legislation ... will prove to be, in the event of a real fire emergency, SO wrong and unworkable. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2008-04-04. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing a Fire Evacuation Chair Device Installation at Dublin Airport, Ireland. On so many levels and in so many ways, this 'decorative' installation ... intended to demonstrate that an organization is complying with legislation ... will prove to be, in the event of a real fire emergency, SO wrong and unworkable. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2008-04-04. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing a Manual/Gravity Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. Transfer from a wheelchair to this type of device at the top of a staircase can be difficult and hazardous ... it can only travel down a staircase, using gravity (never up, against gravity !) ... and during horizontal travel, it is shaky and unstable. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing a Manual/Gravity Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. Transfer from a wheelchair to this type of device at the top of a staircase can be difficult and hazardous ... it can only travel down a staircase, using gravity (never up, against gravity !) ... and during horizontal travel, it is shaky and unstable. Click to enlarge.

.

Fire Evacuation Chair Devices & Issues To Carefully Consider:  Modern wheelchairs come in all shapes, sizes and styles … are highly adapted by their owners … and can be very expensive.  Why is it a surprise, therefore, to learn that most wheelchair users will not want to abandon their expensive personal property, i.e. the wheelchair, in the event of a real fire emergency.

The answer, of course, is PROPER CONSULTATION with All Building Users (where these are known !) during the preparation of a Fire Defence Plan for a Building.

The following photographs illustrate different aspects of the capability of Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Devices …

Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase, using the person's own manual wheelchair. Having completed its task at the bottom (or top !) of a staircase ... the device can be quickly released for use by another person who needs assistance on the staircase. Throughout this process, wheelchair users move independently to a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase, using the person's own manual wheelchair. Having completed its task at the bottom (or top !) of a staircase ... the device can be quickly released for use by another person who needs assistance on the staircase. Throughout this process, wheelchair users move independently to a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing another Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device. This particular device facilitates evacuation of an adapted manual wheelchair, which may (or may not !) be the person's own wheelchair. It also facilitates travel on narrow or unusually shaped staircases. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing another Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device. This particular device facilitates evacuation of an adapted manual wheelchair, which may (or may not !) be the person's own wheelchair. It also facilitates travel on narrow or unusually shaped staircases. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase. It is also robust and stable while travelling horizontally ... both within a building ... and externally, perhaps over rough ground ... in order to reach a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase. It is also robust and stable while travelling horizontally ... both within a building ... and externally, perhaps over rough ground ... in order to reach a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.

.

Product Approval in the European Union Single Market:  Fire Evacuation Chair Devices must be permanently CE Marked … including the product itself, any cover (such as that shown in the Dublin Airport photograph above), all product literature, and any product packaging.

It is not acceptable to print the CE Mark on an adhesive label … and then stick the label to the product !   Correct informative text must always accompany a CE Mark !

Please note that the CE Mark is not a Safety Mark.  A CE Mark denotes conformity with the Essential Requirements of a single, specific European Union Directive.

.

.

END

ISO/IEC Guide 71 & CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 – Flawed ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

International Guidance Document … ISO/IEC Guide 71 : Guidelines for Standards Developers to Address the Needs of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities was issued in November 2001.

European Guidance Document … CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 : Guidelines for Standards Developers to Address the Needs of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities … a similar document … was issued a little later, in January 2002.

These Guides provide basic guidance to people drafting International & European Standards on how to take into account the needs of people with activity limitations, particularly older persons and people with disabilities.  While recognizing that some people with very extensive and complex impairments may have requirements beyond the level addressed in these documents, a very large number of people have minor impairments which can easily be addressed with a very small change of approach by people writing the Standards.  Typically, the problem is solely a lack of awareness.

Unfortunately, few Standards Developers … in either organization … are paying the slightest bit of attention to these Guides.

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

.

1.  A full six months before the appearance of ISO/IEC Guide 71 … all of the 191 Member States of the World Health Organization endorsed, and officially adopted, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF) on 22nd May 2001 … which replaced the earlier International Classification of Impairment, Disability & Handicap (ICIDH), dating from 1980.

While the previous health indicators had been based on the mortality (i.e. death) rates of populations … the new 2001 WHO ICF dramatically shifted the focus to ‘life’ and ‘living’ … in other words, how everyone is living with his/her health condition(s) and how improvements can be made to ensure a productive, fulfilling life in society.

This had important implications for medical practice; for legal, social, economic, institutional, design and spatial planning policies to improve accessibility, equal opportunity for all and inclusion; and for the protection of the rights of all individuals and groups.

Of special interest for people involved in any of the technical fields mentioned above … the 2001 WHO ICF also introduced a new disability-related language and terminology.

BUT … But … but … ISO/IEC Guide 71 and CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 do not use the 2001 WHO ICF’s innovative language and terminology.  Consequently, these International & European Guides are flawed.

For a very good example of WHAT MUST BE AVOIDED (!) in the drafting of International & European Standards … please examine the following text …

ISO DIS (Draft International Standard) 21542 : Building Construction – Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment … dated November 2009 …

Section 3   Terms & Definitions

‘ #3.36  Impairment

Limitation in body function or structure such as a significant deviation or loss which can be temporary due, for example, to injury, or permanent, slight or severe and can fluctuate over time, in particular, deterioration due to ageing.

[ISO/TR 22411:2008]

NOTE 1   Body function can be a physiological or psychological function of a body system; body structure refers to an anatomic part of the body such as organs, limbs and their components (as defined in ICIDH-2 of July 1999).

NOTE 2   This definition differs from that in ISO 9999:2002 and, slightly, from ICIDH-2/ICF: May 2001, WHO: ‘any loss or abnormality of a body function, or body structure’.

NOTE 3   The word ‘abnormality’ is strictly used here to refer to a significant deviation from an established population mean, within measured statistical norms. Impairments can be physical, mental, cognitive or psychological.’

As clear as mud … what a mess !   This does nothing only sow needless confusion in the mind of a reader.

Unless and Until … we properly harmonize, at a technical level, disability-related language and terminology … in order to improve communication … we will all continue to run around in circles and make little forward progress !!!

[ At the level of the individual, people should always be free to use whatever language they wish. ]

Our Guidance to All Standards Developers is … whether working within the International Standards Organizations (ISO & IEC) or the European Standards Organizations (CEN & CENELEC) … or both …

‘ People with Activity Limitations must be properly considered at all stages in the development of a Standard … and any disability-related terminology used … should be fully consistent with the World Health Organization’s 2001 International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF).  Confusing and contradictory texts should be avoided.’

.

2.  In relation to ISO/IEC Guide 71 & CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 – Table 7 (Page 13 in both Guides) … #8.23 Fire Resistance requires a complete re-assessment.  On Page 21 of ISO/IEC Guide 71 and Page 22 of CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 … the supporting text for #8.23 has the different heading of ‘Fire Safety of Materials’ ?!?   Confusing, isn’t it ?

The Revised Title in Table 7 and the supporting text should read … Fire Safety.  ‘Fire Resistance’ is but one of many passive fire protection concepts … a very small sub-set in the wide technical field of ‘fire safety’ in buildings.  ‘Fire Resistance’ is not used in connection with the ignition and fire development behaviour of materials or fabrics.

Relevant Factors for #8.23 are not properly indicated, in Table 7, under Columns #9.2, #9.3, #9.4 (a glaring omission !) & #9.5.

.

3.  Pertinent to ‘fire safety’ in buildings … this text was removed from ISO CD (Committee Draft) 21542 … the previous version of the ISO Standard, dating from December 2008 …

ISO CD 21542 – Annex A.1.2 – 2nd Paragraph

‘ Building users should be skilled for evacuation to a place, or places, of safety remote from the building.  In the case of people with a mental or cognitive impairment, there is a particular need to encourage, foster and regularly practice the adaptive thinking which will be necessary during a ‘real’ fire evacuation.’

The Definition for the Term Skill (#3.60) is still retained in the later ISO DIS 21542 version of the Standard …

‘ The ability of a person – resulting from training and regular practice – to carry out complex, well-organized patterns of behaviour efficiently and adaptively, in order to achieve some end or goal.’

.

4.  While there are eight references to ‘Cognitive Impairment’ in both Guides … nowhere is this term defined … or distinguished from ‘Mental Impairment’ …

Cognitive Impairment:  A deficiency of neuropsychological function which can be related to injury or degeneration in specific area(s) of the brain.

Mental Impairment:  A general term describing a slower than normal rate in a person’s cognitive developmental maturation, or where the cognitive processes themselves appear to be slower than normal – with an associated implication of reduced, overall mental potential. 

A deeper understanding, at a technical level, of the many different types of health conditions and impairments (physical/mental/cognitive/psychological) … can only result in a better designed, more facilitating Human Environment.

One final important term … when considering Fire Safety in Buildings …

Panic Attack:  A momentary period of intense fear or discomfort, accompanied by various symptoms which may include shortness of breath, dizziness, palpitations, trembling, sweating, nausea, and often a fear by a person that he/she is going mad.

I have long held the view that, in Fire Engineering, dramatic breakthroughs will result from a closer study of Cognitive Psychology.

.

.

END

European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup – Inaugural Meeting

Posted by CJ Walsh

2010-03-03:  On Wednesday afternoon, 24th February 2010, the URBAN InterGroup of the European Parliament met for the first time in the new Parliamentary Term … at 16.30 hrs … in Meeting Room 6Q2 of the Parliamentary Complex in Brussels, Belgium.  Dr. Jan Olbrycht, Member of the European Parliament (MEP), chaired the proceedings.  The attendance was large, and included a large proportion of the 50, or so, MEP’s who are directly involved with the InterGroup.  Please forgive the jargon, but … many other URBAN InterGroup Partners, Sectoral Stakeholders and Interested Practitioners also attended.  However … not one Irish MEP appears to show any interest in this important InterGroup.  Why is that ?

Colour photograph showing the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament's URBAN InterGroup, in Brussels, on 24th February 2010. The Meeting, chaired by Mr. Jan Olbrycht MEP, had a large attendance. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
Colour photograph showing the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament's URBAN InterGroup, in Brussels, on 24th February 2010. The Meeting, chaired by Mr. Jan Olbrycht MEP, had a large attendance. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.

.

I was very pleased to attend this Meeting, representing Sustainable Design International Ltd. (a Multi-Disciplinary Design & Research Practice in Europe, and a Micro-SME).  Further to a series of interventions on my part, the following are some Comments on last Wednesday’s Meeting … and a few Suggestions …

1.  Accountable & Representative Governance is an important component in the implementation of Sustainable Human and Social Development.  It is not being too ambitious, therefore, to say that the URBAN InterGroup has an important task to fulfil within the ‘system’ of the European Parliament.

2.  Within such a ‘system’ … it is a big advantage that the InterGroup’s Structure is informal and fluid.  This allows the InterGroup to be cross-party and cross-committee at the Parliament … and to adopt a ‘flexible’ horizontal approach to Urban-Related Issues.

3.  This same Horizontal Approach must, however, be applied to a proper consideration of the Urban Environment (City) itself … which is far more than the sum of its buildings, public spaces, transport systems, engineering infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), and service utilities, etc., etc.

4.  In order to deal effectively with Urban-Related Issues and the many different Sectoral Stakeholders … it is essential that the Intergroup discusses and develops a comprehensive and coherent vision of what exactly is a Sustainable Urban Environment (City).  Please see the previous post on this Blog, dated 2010-03-02.

And … even though the regular InterGroup Meetings will be of short duration … it will be of great benefit to link small, individual issues to that larger, coherent vision.  Then, and only then, will the InterGroup always know where it is … and, more importantly, in which direction it is travelling … in order to monitor progress.

5.  It was not clear to me, at the Meeting, that the significant differences between the words ‘Sustainable’ and ‘Green’ are fully understood.  This will cause problems for the InterGroup in the future, and should be examined in more detail.

The European Union (E.U.) Treaties refer to ‘Sustainable Development’ … not to ‘Greenness’ !! 

6.  It was also evident, at the Meeting, that there is a Lack of Communication between the European Parliament and the European Commission on Urban-Related Issues.  Let me immediately say, however, that there is a worrying lack of communication (on any issue !) between the different Directorates-General within the Commission.

It must be a Priority for the InterGroup … a difficult one, I know … to have direct access to available Urban-Related Information … across all of the European Union’s Institutions.  It is too wasteful of the InterGroup’s limited resources to be required to ‘re-invent wheels’ !

7.  With regard to the URBAN InterGroup’s Work Programme … it is necessary to add a specific mention of the following Two Subjects:

(i)  Proactive Climate Change Adaptation

Climate Change Adaptation, generally, encompasses actions to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.

Urban Environment Climate Change Adaptation, more precisely, means … reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Urban Environment (City) … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.

Following detailed briefing meetings, in Dublin, from high-level participants in Copenhagen … the suggestion of this subject arises from what happened … or, more correctly, did not happen … to the European Union and its inadequate Climate Change Policies at the 2009 Climate Summit in December.

(ii)  Accessibility for People with Activity Limitations (Personnes à Performances Réduites)

The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force on 3rd May 2008, i.e. it became an International Legal Instrument.  European Union (E.U.) Member States are currently undertaking the process of ratifying this Convention at national level.  At a certain stage in the near future, the Union (as a polity, post Lisbon Treaty) will certainly also ratify the Convention.

People with Activity Limitations now have a clearly defined right, under International Law, to be able to access and use the Urban Environment (City).  They also have the right to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, e.g. when there is a fire in a building.

The InterGroup must fully take account of these rights !   This is no longer an option.  In this regard and until now, the attitudes and performance of the E.U. Institutions has been nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace.

8.  With regard to the Main Objectives of the URBAN InterGroup … it is necessary to add the following Preamble to those Objectives …

Adopting a long-term perspective, i.e. beyond the lifetime of any single parliamentary term … the Main Objectives of the InterGroup are to:

–   monitor the legislative and non-legislative work of the European Parliament’s Committees on Urban-Related Issues ;

–   work on common European Union Strategies – to put Urban Needs on the agenda of E.U. Policies ;

–   be actively involved in the preparation of E.U. legislation ;

–   constantly stay in contact with partners and practitioners ;

–   be informed about the realization of E.U. Policies on the ground.

Please note well … that the short-term perspective of elected politicians, whether at European, National or Local Levels, is a Serious Impediment to the proper implementation of a Sustainable Urban Environment (City) !

.

.

END

2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India – 8th & 9th January

Posted by CJ Walsh

It was a great pleasure to be invited to speak on the subject of Sustainable Fire Engineering at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India.  This ground breaking conference in Asia took place at the India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, Delhi … on the 8th & 9th January last.  Back during August (2009) in Bengaluru … the ACRECONF Chairman, Mr. Ashish Rakheja, told me that he expected an attendance of somewhere between 500-600 people at the Delhi Conference.  Over the two days of the actual conference, approximately 1800 delegates participated … an enormous response by architects, civil and service engineers, developers, client and construction organizations, etc., etc., from right across the country … and from the deep south.

Colour photograph showing some of the many participants at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi, as they enjoy talking and networking during the morning coffee break of the second day at the conference. The venue was the India Habitat Centre on Lodhi Road. The weather was chilly for the time of year, and there had been a heavy fog earlier in the morning. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-01-09.
Colour photograph showing some of the many participants at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi, as they enjoy talking and networking during the morning coffee break of the second day at the conference. The venue was the India Habitat Centre on Lodhi Road. The weather was chilly for the time of year, and there had been a heavy fog earlier in the morning. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-01-09.

For me … refreshing, extremely impressive, and certainly the highlight of the conference … was a multi-media presentation … on the second morning, just after the coffee break … by Mr. Karan Grover, the renowned Indian Architect.  He is quite an individual !

Before the break, delegates had been treated to an elaboration of the Environmental Design Innovations incorporated into the 71 storey Pearl River Tower (Guangzhou, China), by Mr. Varun Kohli of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in New York.  Construction of the Tower is now well under way.  Afterwards, however, an important discussion took place concerning the issue of fire safety, and fire engineering generally, in Sustainable Buildings.  It became clear to all of the participants that this issue is a major oversight … an intentional gap … in the design of these buildings.  I made the point, forcibly, that Sustainable Fire Engineering is open to innovation and design creativity. There will be an important follow-up to this discussion.

Colour photograph showing a silly tourist on a bicycle rickshaw, as he is brought sightseeing around the Bazaar District in Old Delhi. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by Mr. Daljeet Singh, Ministry of Tourism, with CJ Walsh's camera. 2010-01-09.
Colour photograph showing a silly tourist on a bicycle rickshaw, as he is brought sightseeing around the Bazaar District in Old Delhi. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by Mr. Daljeet Singh, Ministry of Tourism, with CJ Walsh's camera. 2010-01-09.

Unfortunately, the conference was peppered with references to ‘Green’ Buildings … an outdated marketing concept (!) … which, within its limited world-view, gives people the false comfort of not having to deal with thorny issues such as ‘social justice, solidarity & inclusion for all’.  I have discussed this issue many times in previous posts.

Even more unfortunately, where the Brundtland Definition of ‘Sustainable Development’ was actually presented in one session … as usual, it was only the first half of the definition which made any appearance.  The second, and more important, half of the definition had mysteriously vanished without trace … which made the whole effort a meaningless exercise !   What a waste !!   No wonder there is such confusion over the concept … at all levels … in most countries !!!

It was not surprising, therefore, that what was not stressed enough, during the entire conference, was that Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s), etc.  The LEED Building Rating System (USA), for example, is not being properly adapted to local conditions in India !

A final issue … another major oversight … another intentional gap … in the design of buildings … Accessibility-for-All !   Even though India ratified the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 1st October 2007 … this essential aspect of design … certainly in Sustainable Buildings … received no mention whatever during the conference … except by yours truly, in my presentation.

Overall … a magnificent achievement for the organizers !

. 

. 

END

Yesterday’s Burj Dubai Inauguration – The Tallest ?? How ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

Yesterday (2010-01-04), the Burj Dubai … recently renamed the Burj Khalifa, in honour of Abu Dhabi’s Ruler … was inaugurated.  Dubayy, as it is known locally, is situated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  Contrary to most reports, this building has a height of approximately 550 metres !

Colour photograph of the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubayy, United Arab Emirates ... which was recently inaugurated on 4th January 2010. A romantic image, for now, of the World's Tallest Building. But ... how 'sustainable' ... and 'fire safe' ... is this building ?
Colour photograph of the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubayy, United Arab Emirates ... which was recently inaugurated on 4th January 2010. A romantic image, for now, of the World's Tallest Building. But ... how 'sustainable' ... and 'fire safe' ... is this building ? Click to enlarge.

Every single metre counts in the race of the ‘tallest’ !   So, the timing of the following CTBUH(USA) Press Announcement, back in November 2009, was most fortunate.  In my opinion, the most meaningful height criterion is … Height to Occupied Floor.  But, what do you think ?   See below.

However … purposefully tripping you up as you race to read all about the height criteria of Tall and Super-Tall Buildings … we should all know and understand, I hope, that comparing the ‘size’ of structural members is a silly schoolboy’s game.  So, I would like to pose Some Important Questions (discussed, ad nauseam, in previous posts) about the Burj Khalifa Tower …

  1. Dubayy (Dubai) is a crude reproduction of the nightmare that is the 20th Century North American City, i.e. it is on the opposite end of the scale from being ‘sustainable’ !   ‘Greenwashing’ aside … How Sustainable is the Burj Khalifa Tower ?
  2. There is no effective system, in Dubayy, of Independent Monitoring and Technical Control of the processes of building design and construction by Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) or Competent Technical Controllers … 

How Fire Safe is the Burj Khalifa Tower … for All of the large population, including People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), who will undoubtedly be using/occupying the building during its long life cycle ?

Has the Tower been designed to adequately resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ?   ‘Robustness’ and ‘Disproportionate Damage’ are separate, but related, structural concepts.

During my next visit to Dubayy … I will enjoy looking at, and photographing, the completed building.  But, I will not be entering the Burj Khalifa Tower !

. 

Chicago, 2009-11-17:  The Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH) – the international body which arbitrates on tall building height and determines the title of ‘The World’s Tallest Building’ – has announced a change to its height criteria, as a reflection of recent developments with several super-tall buildings.

The new criteria wording – ‘Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance to …’ allows for the recognition of the increasing numbers of multi-use tall buildings with often several different entrances at different levels, whilst also accommodating buildings constructed in non-traditional urban or suburban locations.  The CTBUH Height Committee has determined that the previous description of where to measure tall building height from – ‘Height is measured from the sidewalk outside the main entrance to …’ is now no longer sufficient.

This will have an impact on both the height of tall buildings and their relative international height rankings.  Burj Dubai, set to open as the world’s tallest building in January 2010, will now be measured from the lowest of its three main entrances (which opens into the entrance lobby for the tower’s corporate suite office function), while the recently completed Trump International Hotel & Towers in Chicago will be measured from the lower, publicly accessible Chicago Riverwalk.  In the case of Trump, this additional 9 metres (approx.) means that it will surpass the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai to occupy the rank of 6th tallest on the current list of completed buildings.

“Beginning in 2007, with the knowledge that Burj Dubai would be significantly taller than any structure ever built, the CTBUH Height Committee met to review the criteria by which we recognize and rank the height of buildings”, said Peter Weismantle, Chair of the CTBUH Height Committee and Director of Supertall Building Technology at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture in Chicago.  “As one might guess, with the committee being made up of architects, engineers, contractors, developers, building owners and academics, a variety of opinions and views were expressed.  The resulting revisions, almost two years later, reflect a general consensus of the committee in recognizing the most recent trends in tall building development around the world.”

Also in response to the changing designs and forms of tall buildings, the Height Committee has elected to discard its previous ‘Height to Roof’ Category.  “The roof category just doesn’t make sense anymore”, said CTBUH Executive Director Antony Wood.  “In the era of the flat-topped modernist tower, a clearly defined roof could usually be identified, but in today’s tall building world – which is increasingly adopting elaborate forms, spires, parapets and other features at the top of the building – it is becoming difficult to determine a ‘roof’ at all, even less so to measure to it.”

Colour image showing the World's 10 Tallest Buildings ... ranked by the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH), in November 2009, according to the criterion 'Height to Highest Occupied Floor'. Also included is the Burj Khalifa Tower, which was inaugurated on 4th January 2010.
Colour image showing the World's 10 Tallest Buildings ... ranked by the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH), in November 2009, according to the criterion 'Height to Highest Occupied Floor'. Also included is the Burj Khalifa Tower, which was inaugurated on 4th January 2010. Click to enlarge.

The Revised CTBUH Height Criteria and Diagrams of the Tallest 10 Buildings in the World as of November 2009 can be found here, ranked according to the three height categories now recognized by CTBUH.  These are: (i) Height to Architectural Top, measured to the topmost architectural feature of the building including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment;  (ii) Height to Highest Occupied Floor, measured to the level of the highest, consistently occupied floor in the building (thus not including service or mechanical areas which experience occasional maintenance access);  and (iii) Height to Tip, measured to the highest point of the building, irrespective of material or function of the highest element.

.

.

END

Building Fire Emergencies – What is a ‘Place of Safety’ ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

2009-10-24:  As I have travelled around … not just Ireland, but many other countries as well … it still remains a puzzle to me, today, why so many Fire Emergency Assembly Areas are located just outside the main entrance of a building.  These locations are not safe in a ‘real’ fire emergency … and they should not even be used for the purposes of test/drill evacuations !

Is the guidance contained in current Building & Fire Regulations, Codes and Standards on what is a ‘Place of Safety’ in a fire emergency clear, simple, direct and precise ?   Are you joking ?   No way !   Let us take a few examples close to home …

In Ireland:

When you look at the array of different Technical Guidance Documents (Building Regulations) at the same time … TGD B (Fire Safety) is way out of proportion, in size, compared to all of the others.  You would expect, therefore, to find exactly what you were looking for in that document.  Wouldn’t you ?

TGD B (2006), Paragraph #1.0.9 – Definitions

Place of Safety

A place, normally in the open air at ground level, in which persons are in no danger from fire.

Clear as mud !   If there is a fire on O’Connell Street in Dublin … a person is safe on Patrick Street in Cork !   But, how is any Building or Facilities Manager expected to work with such a vague definition ? 

In England & Wales:

No practical definition, as such, is readily provided.  The nearest thing to a definition is an amalgam of the following …

Building Regulations, Requirement B1 – Means of Warning & Escape

The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire, and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times.

Approved Document B: Volume 1 – Dwellinghouses & Volume 2 – Buildings Other Than Dwellinghouses

The ultimate place of safety is the open air clear of the effects of the fire.

British Standard BS 9999 : Code of Practice for Fire Safety in the Design, Management & Use of Buildings : 2008

Place of Ultimate Safety

Place in which there is no immediate or future danger from fire or from the effects of a fire.

Again … all as clear as mud !   Again … how is any Building or Facilities Manager expected to work with such vague guidance ?   Have you also noticed the additional obfuscation introduced by use of the word ‘ultimate’ in BS 9999 ?

It is hard to escape the conclusion that what is urgently needed is a fundamental transformation and re-shaping of the tired, antiquated and flawed ad-hoc assembly of prescriptive ‘solutions’ contained in current national building and fire regulations, codes, standards and administrative provisions … whatever their origin !

.

Now … try this for clarity, simplicity, directness and precision …

Place of Safety (Fire Incident in a Building, No Explosion Hazard*)

Any location beyond a perimeter which is [100]* metres from the fire building or a distance of [10]* times the height of such building, whichever is the greater

and

where necessary and effective medical care and attention can be provided, or organized, within one hour of injury

and

where people can be identified.

* Where there is a Risk of Explosion … multiply the numbers in square brackets above by 4.

Was that good for you ?

Furthermore …

The Route to any Place of Safety must be Accessible for All Building Users, including people who use wheelchairs, the visually impaired, frail older people, women in the later stages of pregnancy, children, etc., etc.

Colour photograph showing a Typical Scene at a Building Fire Emergency, with Fire Service Vehicles and Personnel in operation mode. The haphazard arrangement of firefighting water hoses on the ground makes access difficult for many Building Users to a 'Place of Safety' which is remote from the Fire Building.
Colour photograph showing a Typical Scene at a Building Fire Emergency, with Fire Service Vehicles and Personnel in operation mode. The haphazard arrangement of firefighting water hoses on the ground makes access difficult for many Building Users to a ‘Place of Safety’ which is remote from the Fire Building. Click to enlarge.

With regard to an Adequate, never mind a Proper, Awareness of Disability-Related Issues at a Fire Scene … it is shocking to realize how almost non-existent this is among Fire Services … not just in Ireland and Britain … but in the rest of Europe and North America as well.

Even a hint of criticism will usually … not always … meet the Neanderthal Fire Service Response: “Have you ever been in a ‘real’ building fire ?”

My Response is: “Do you have to be a hen to know when an egg is bad ?”

This discussion will continue later … have no doubt … that is a promise !

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta