Client Organizations

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

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

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) – Parts M & B ? (II)

2009-10-18:  In everyday practice, the usual short introductory text in Technical Guidance Document M (Ireland) which refers to a linkage between ‘access and use’ of a building with ‘fire safety’ has little impact, because it is not explained … and is typically ignored.

In general … the basic problem is that this issue is hardly dealt with … at all … by Local Fire Authorities right across the country in their handling of Fire Safety Certificates … and where it does become part of the process, it receives inadequate attention.  There are exceptions.

A major drawback with the current vertical approach to our Building Regulations … each of the Parts has its own separate Supporting Technical Guidance Document … is that people are not sufficiently aware of the important horizontal linkages between the different Parts.  For example, all of the other Parts must be linked to Part D.  Quick, run to find out what Part D covers !   Another two examples … Part B must also be linked to Part A and Part M … and Part M must also be linked to Part K and Part B.

So … while grudgingly having to accept that the scope of TGD M should have some limit, under the current flawed system … a precise intervention with just one or two sentences, at critical places in the guidance text, would help to improve the overall consideration of fire safety issues, relevant to Part M, by building designers … and client or construction organizations.

Here are a Few Suggestions for Discussion …

1.  Revise Paragraph #0.6 of Draft TGD M (2009) & Add a Title …

Fire Evacuation for All

” Accessibility encompasses the full range of activity related to buildings: to approach, enter, use, egress from under normal conditions, and evacuate a building independently during a fire emergency, in an equitable and dignified manner.  Provision for access and use must, therefore, be linked to provision for fire evacuation.  For guidance on design for evacuation, reference should be made to Technical Guidance Document B (Fire Safety).”

Note:  No such guidance is contained in TGD B (2006).  It would be a great wonder if any person with a disability could actually evacuate a building which had been designed in accordance with TGD B.  To take a simple example … all of the ‘stairways’ in Table 1.5 of TGD B – Minimum Width of Escape Stairways will not facilitate contraflow or the assisted evacuation of mobility and visually impaired people.  Furthermore, those minimum widths specified in the Table may have a clear width which is 200 mm less.  See Methods of Measurement, Paragraph #1.0.10 (c) (iii) … ” a stairway is the clear width between the walls or balustrades, (strings and handrails intruding not more than 30 mm and 100 mm respectively may be ignored) ” !   What an incoherent mess !!

2.  Insert New Sentence at the End of Paragraph #1.1.1 of Draft TGD M (2009) …

Objective (Approach to Buildings)

” Consideration should be given to the use of the approach and circulation routes around a building as accessible routes to a ‘place of safety’ during a fire emergency.”

3.  Insert New Sentence at the End of Paragraph #1.2.1 of Draft TGD M (2009) …

Objective (Access to Buildings)

” Consideration should be given to the use of all entrances to a building as accessible fire exits during a fire emergency.”

4.  Insert New Paragraph at the End of Paragraph #1.3.4.1 of Draft TGD M (2009) …

Passenger Lifts

” Manual handling of occupied wheelchairs in a fire evacuation staircase, even with adequate training for everyone directly and indirectly involved, is hazardous for the person in the wheelchair and those people – minimum three – giving assistance.  The weight of an average unoccupied powered wheelchair, alone, makes manual handling impractical.  Lifts in new buildings should, therefore, be capable of being used for evacuation in a fire situation.  For guidance on the use of lifts for fire evacuation, reference should be made to Technical Guidance Document B (Fire Safety).”

5.  Insert New Paragraph and New Sentence at the End of Paragraph #1.3.4.2 of Draft TGD M (2009) …

Internal Stairs

” To allow sufficient space to safely carry an occupied wheelchair down or up a fire evacuation staircase, and to accommodate contraflow, i.e. emergency access by firefighters entering a building and moving towards a fire, while people are still evacuating from the building to a ‘place of safety remote from the building, the clear unobstructed width (exclusive of handrails and any other projections, e.g. portable fire extinguishers, notice boards, etc.) of the flight of a single, or multi-channelled, stairs should not be less than 1 500 mm.  The surface width of a flight of stairs should not be less than 1 700 mm.”

Note:  See Footnote (5) to Table 1.5 in TGD B (2006) … ” The minimum widths given in the table may need to be increased in accordance with the guidance in TGD M: Access for People with Disabilities.”   DUH ?

And …

” For the purpose of safe assisted fire evacuation of people, the rise of a step should not have a height greater than 150 mm, and the going of a step should not have a depth less than 300 mm.”

6.  Insert New Sentence at the End of Paragraph #1.5.1 of Draft TGD M (2009) …

Objective (Facilities in Buildings)

” Consideration should be given to the use of relevant facilities within a building, by people with disabilities, for the purposes of fire safety, protection and evacuation.”

7.  Insert New Sentence at the End of Paragraph #1.6.1 of Draft TGD M (2009) …

Objective (Aids to Communication)

” Consideration should be given to the use of relevant aids to communication, by people with disabilities, for the purposes of fire safety, protection and evacuation.”

Note:  More guidance could be provided under each of the individual paragraphs of Section #1.6 of Draft TGD M (2009).  See Draft International Accessibility-for-All Standard ISO 21542.

8.  Insert New Section #2.6 of Draft TGD M (2009) …

Fire Safety in Dwellings for People with Disabilities

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

BATIMAT Building Exhibition in Paris (2-7 November 2009)

2009-10-18:  Here we are, once again, approaching November 2009.  Two years have rolled by … far too quickly … since the last Paris BATIMAT Exhibition in 2007.

Compared to what we are used to in Ireland, the BATIMAT Exhibition is huge … taking at least 3-4 days in order to see everything half-decently !

Annotated, colour image showing the 2009 Paris BATIMAT Exhibition Site Layout and general information about dates (2-7 November), opening times (every morning, from 09.00 hrs), etc. Click to enlarge. Extract from Official Exhibition Catalogue.
Annotated, colour image showing the 2009 Paris BATIMAT Exhibition Site Layout and general information about dates (2-7 November), opening times (every morning, from 09.00 hrs), etc. Click to enlarge. Extract from Official Exhibition Catalogue.

 

I have been going there for many years … to spot new trends, discover innovative building products and systems … and meet up with friends from CSTB or CTICM.  In a good year, I would expect to find at least 7-8 good new ideas …

Colour photograph showing an exterior view looking up the main avenue towards Pavillon (Hall) 7. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2001-11-09.
Colour photograph showing an exterior view looking up the main avenue towards Pavillon (Hall) 7. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2001-11-09.

When I first enter the Exhibition, I usually become emotional … almost close to tears … with FRUSTRATION (!) … not at the enormous scale of the event … but because so much on view never appears in the Irish Construction Product Marketplace … and if they do appear, it is not until many years later.  I kid you not !   There are reasons … but, that is a discussion for another day …

Colour photograph showing an interior view looking over Pavillon (Hall) 1. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2001-11-09.
Colour photograph showing an interior view looking over Pavillon (Hall) 1. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2001-11-09.

I wonder if the Current Recession in the European Construction Sector will have an adverse impact on this year’s exhibition …

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) – A Time to Worry ? (I)

2009-10-17:  Some of you are already hitting the Internet Search Engines … with fierce intent altogether … about  Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) !

Is it Time to Panic ?   No.

For a simple and direct hit, the 2 most relevant Irish Legal Instruments are:

1.  Statutory Instrument No. 352 of 2009 – Building Control Act 2007 (Commencement) Order 2009.

This states …

” The 30 September 2009 is appointed as the day on which the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Building Control Act 2007 shall come into operation.”

Section 5 covers the Amendment of Section 6 (Building Control Regulations) of the Building Control Act 1990.

Section 6 covers the Amendment of Section 7 (Appeals) of the Building Control Act 1990.

2.  Statutory Instrument No. 351 of 2009 – Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2009.

This states …

” These Regulations shall come into effect on 1 October 2009, except for the provisions of Article 8 which shall come into effect on 1 January 2009.”

Article 8 covers Disability Access Certificates and Revised Disability Access Certificates.

For you, yourself, to properly examine all of the ‘ins and outs’ of this New Certification Scheme … download the PDF File below … and then search the document (making sure that it is not case-sensitive !) using the phrase ‘Disability Access Certificate’.  You will find 99 instances where the phrase is used.

Enjoy !

Ireland: Statutory Instrument No. 351 of 2009 – Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Click the Link above to read/download PDF File (223 Kb)

In order to make full sense of all that is happening, and is intended to happen in the not too distant future … there are a few other Legal Instruments, related to the two listed, which also need to be consulted … but that is an exercise meant for masochists !

In comparison, the European Union Lisbon Treaty was a sweet bedtime story !   Seriously !!

.

Is it Time to Worry ?   Yes.

Here are just a few random ideas for your cogitation …

  • If the Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) pays little heed to Submissions made during and after this summer’s ‘consultation’ process … the proposed New Technical Guidance Document M: ‘Access & Use’ will end up looking like a real dog’s dinner of an absolute mess !   FUBAR.

Years were spent in the preparation of the New TGD M.  When it does eventually appear, it will be an accurate reflection of technical capacities within both the Department and the National Disability Authority (NDA).

Deeply regretted is the absence of Mr. Kevin Spencer … a gentle soul … from the DEHLG.  Things have not been the same since his departure.  He knew what he was talking about.

  • Who will deal, at a technical level, with Applications for Disability Access Certificates in the Local Authorities ?   Will they be competent to do so ?   Will their interpretation of the Part M Legal Requirements be harmonized … not just with other/different Authorities … but even with other technical personnel in the same Authority ???
  • In order to make this new certification scheme work, will the Guidance Text in Technical Guidance Document M (whatever version appears !) be operated as if it were Prescriptive Regulation … which will be totally illegal ?

This has been exactly the story … for many years … with the Guidance Text in Technical Guidance Document B … in the course of operation of the Fire Safety Certification Scheme.  FUBAR.

  • If, as I hinted above, the proposed New Technical Guidance Document M: ‘Access & Use’ will be a real dog’s dinner of a mess … falling far short of what can now be reasonably described as minimal accessibility performance (see the Draft International Accessibility-for-All Standard ISO 21542) … this will certainly open Building Owners/Managers of newly completed buildings to Complaints under Irish Equality Legislation.  Why is the Disability Sector so inactive with regard to making complaints ?

and finally …

  • Are the relevant Irish Decision Makers, as I suggested might happen in a previous post, in the process of actually sleepwalking into an unquestioned acceptance of the inadequate British Standards BS 9999 : 2008 and BS 8300 : 2009 ???   Do they know how to do anything else ?

 

For some sublime moments of meditation, however, please chew on the information provided at these Pages on the SDI Support WebSite

Disability Rights & Removing Physical Restrictions on Participation in Society ;

Towards a Sustainable Social Environment, Accessibility-for-All & Facilitation Design (2001 WHO ICF) ;

Fire Evacuation-for-All & Principles of Fire Engineering.

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Buildings of Historical, Architectural & Cultural Importance !

2009-10-08:  Deeply interested … and ‘luuuving’ … a hands-on and direct involvement in the Sustainable Restoration of Buildings which are of Historical, Architectural or Cultural Importance … or even those buildings which are not so important … I am deeply frustrated and angry when I look around at what has happened … and continues to happen … in Ireland … horrible, damaging interventions and alterations of all kinds … too many of which cannot be undone.

Certain guru-like organizations and individuals must be robustly challenged !

Yes … in everyday practice, there are pressures concerning an improvement of energy performance (BER Certificates !) … an improvement of accessibility performance for people with activity limitations (2001 WHO ICF) … an improvement of fire safety performance, etc., etc. … and, in the next few short years, adaptation to climate change will require serious attention.

BUT – BUT – BUT … in dealing with these buildings (a priceless heritage for our children, and their children, which cannot be replaced !) … some absolutely core principles must influence the minds of decision-makers in client and construction organizations, national authorities having jurisdiction, regulators … and, most importantly, the minds and souls of architects and engineers.  (I am wondering … do engineers have souls ?)

.

ICOMOSInternational Council on Monuments & Sites / Conseil International des Monuments et des Sites – works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage places and is the only global, non-governmental organization of its kind.  It is dedicated to promoting the application of theory, methodology, and scientific techniques to the conservation of the architectural and archaeological heritage.  Its work is based on the principles enshrined in the 1964 International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter).

From practical experience, I have found the 16 Principles of the 1964 Venice Charter to be enormously helpful …

ARTICLE 1    The concept of an historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or an historic event.  This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time.

ARTICLE 2    The conservation and restoration of monuments must have recourse to all the sciences and techniques which can contribute to the study and safeguarding of the architectural heritage.

ARTICLE 3    The intention in conserving and restoring monuments is to safeguard them no less as works of art than as historical evidence.

ARTICLE 4    It is essential to the conservation of monuments that they be maintained on a permanent basis.

ARTICLE 5    The conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose.  Such use is therefore desirable but it must not change the lay-out or decoration of the building.  It is within these limits only that modifications demanded by a change of function should be envisaged and may be permitted.

ARTICLE 6    The conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting which is not out of scale.  Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept.  No new construction, demolition or modification which would alter the relations of mass and colour must be allowed.

ARTICLE 7    A monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs.  The moving of all or part of a monument cannot be allowed except where the safeguarding of that monument demands it or where it is justified by national or international interest of paramount importance.

ARTICLE 8    Items of sculpture, painting or decoration which form an integral part of a monument may only be removed from it if this is the sole means of ensuring their preservation.

ARTICLE 9    The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation.  Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents.  It must stop at the point where conjecture begins, and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp.  The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument.

ARTICLE 10    Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modem technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience.

ARTICLE 11    The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration.  When a building includes the superimposed work of different periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and when what is removed is of little interest and the material which is brought to light is of great historical, archaeological or aesthetic value, and its state of preservation good enough to justify the action.  Evaluation of the importance of the elements involved and the decision as to what may be destroyed cannot rest solely on the individual in charge of the work.

ARTICLE 12    Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence.

ARTICLE 13    Additions cannot be allowed except in so far as they do not detract from the interesting parts of the building, its traditional setting, the balance of its composition and its relation with its surroundings.

ARTICLE 14    The sites of monuments must be the object of special care in order to safeguard their integrity and ensure that they are cleared and presented in a seemly manner.  The work of conservation and restoration carried out in such places should be inspired by the principles set forth in the foregoing articles.

ARTICLE 15    Excavations should be carried out in accordance with scientific standards and the recommendation defining international principles to be applied in the case of archaeological excavation adopted by UNESCO in 1956.

Ruins must be maintained and measures necessary for the permanent conservation and protection of architectural features and of objects discovered must be taken.  Furthermore, every means must be taken to facilitate the understanding of the monument and to reveal it without ever distorting its meaning.

All reconstruction work should however be ruled out ‘a priori’.  Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted.  The material used for integration should always be recognizable and its use should be the least that will ensure the conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form.

ARTICLE 16    In all works of preservation, restoration or excavation, there should always be precise documentation in the form of analytical and critical reports, illustrated with drawings and photographs.  Every stage of the work of clearing, consolidation, rearrangement and integration, as well as technical and formal features identified during the course of the work, should be included.  This record should be placed in the archives of a public institution and made available to research workers.  It is recommended that the report should be published.

.

Note on BER Certificates for Historical Buildings in Ireland

Unless and until that magnificent marketing and public relations firm … Energy Ireland (SEAI) … can openly show that the DEAP Software has been properly modified to handle buildings of historical, architectural or cultural importance … and this modification is fully transparent … Building Energy Rating (BER) Certification for these building types must be put on hold.

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Faulty Tower – John Cleese, Where Are You ?

2009-10-07:   A Cautionary Tale for Clients/Client Organizations … from across the Pond … and a serious lack of Technical Control over the processes of Building Design and Construction …

Where there is no proper Technical Control … can there ever be an appropriate safety factor to incorporate into the design  ?

And before it’s too late … how is it possible to establish that there is no proper Technical Control ?

An artistic rendering of the oval-shaped Harmon Hotel & Spa, in Las Vegas, Nevada (USA), at its original designed height of 49 stories.
An artistic rendering of the oval-shaped Harmon Hotel & Spa, in Las Vegas, Nevada (USA), at its original designed height of 49 stories. Click to enlarge.

.

2009-10-26‘Who’s to Blame for Faulty Foster Tower ?’ … by Tony Illia, Architectural Record (archrecord.construction.com) …

Despite the recession, CityCenter continues to rise on the Las Vegas Strip, with several buildings scheduled to open later this year.  One project that certainly has not turned out as planned is the 400-room Harmon Hotel Tower, designed by Foster & Partners, which will be nearly half its estimated height due to construction defects.  The problems have escalated into finger-pointing between project parties, resulting in legal actions and project reviews that are still under way.

The 28-story oval-shaped high-rise broke ground in July 2006.  Pacific Coast Steel, a San Diego-based subcontractor to Perini Building Co., improperly installed reinforcing steel inside link beams on 15 floors, a Clark County Building Department investigation revealed.

The problem should have been caught by inspectors, but a third-party California inspection firm, Converse Consultants, falsified 62 daily reports between March and July of 2008, stating that the steel was properly installed, according to county inspectors, who also missed the problems.

The defects were discovered in July 2008 by the project’s structural engineer, Halcrow Yolles Structural Engineer, temporarily halting construction and leading to the Harmon’s redesign.  Owner MGM Mirage declined to disclose the cost of the errors.

This April, Pacific Coast Steel paid $14,105 in fines after a Nevada State Contractors Board investigation discovered ‘workmanship’ issues.  As part of a settlement, the firm did not admit fault.  In August, Converse Consultants was suspended from seeking new work in Southern Nevada for six months, and its inspectors had their qualifications revoked or suspended.

The subcontractor says Foster & Partners is partly to blame.  “Perini stands by its opinion that design conflicts contributed to the Harmon Hotel structural issues and that portions of the structural drawings, as designed and permitted, contained elements of reinforcing steel that could not be installed as drawn,” said Perini President Craig Shaw in a statement.

The Harmon’s design called for pouring top portions of 2.4m thick link beams at the same time as the floor slab, which is a tricky procedure given the tight and exact spacing of reinforcing rebar.  However, the contractor made installation adjustments in field.  Stirrup hooks, in some cases, were spaced incorrectly and extended past the floor, prompting workers to cut them off so it wouldn’t show, the county inspectors say.

Corrective work and a structural building redesign are in progress.  The building will safely reach 28 stories; pricier work would be needed to meet the originally designed height of 49 stories, say project officials, who would not elaborate.  Foster & Partners declined to comment for this story.

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Concrete Testing Fraud in New York – 1 World Trade Center

2009-09-09

Background & Verification

Early 2008 … a New York Inquiry into the Concrete Testing Industry begins.  At issue is the Structural Reliability of Current Major Public Works Projects in the City, including many Tall Buildings.

Current Internet Search: ‘New York Concrete Testing Inquiry’ … to discover the full measure of fraud and corruption.

I wonder how the U.S. Model Building & Fire Code Organizations … including the U.S. International Code Council … are responding to this growing scandal in New York.   Are they responding at all ?   AND … do they discuss this sort of issue openly, as they heavily ‘promote’ the adoption of U.S. Codes in Developing Countries around the world ?

What is the position of the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH) ???

.

2009-09-08 … by Niki May Young, News Editor, World Architecture News(.com) …

Robert LiMandri, New York’s Buildings Commissioner, has announced that concrete tests are to be carried out on 82 New York buildings following safety concerns arising from the indictment of Testwell Laboratories in January and a further firm in July.  Testwell were accused of falsifying concrete mix design reports for the high profile Freedom Tower Project (now 1 World Trade Center), Yankees Stadium, Jet Blue Terminal and a number of other projects and had their license suspended.  Stallone Testing Laboratories were also indicted for falsifying concrete mix design reports in July.

The indictment of Testwell led to a lack of confidence in the safety of over 100 buildings in New York.  Following investigations, 82 buildings are to be re-examined.  The investigations come as part of an announcement by LiMandri of a new comprehensive program to increase the oversight and evaluation of concrete testing at construction projects throughout the City, including projects funded by the City and private developers.  The program includes plans to build a city-owned and operated concrete-testing laboratory and the creation of a new Concrete Unit at the Department Of Buildings (DOB).

The new City laboratory, which will be operated by the Department of Design & Construction (DDC) and is expected to open as early as January, will offer testing services to all City agencies responsible for construction projects.  New York City has 35 private concrete-testing firms currently licensed to do business in the City and the new facility will also make it possible to audit these firms.

“Concrete testing is a critical component of concrete operations, and the results should affirm the strength and quality of materials used for a building under construction,” said LiMandri.  “However, the integrity of concrete-testing practices has come into serious question, and this new laboratory, as well as a new Concrete Unit and re-testing protocol, are three significant measures to ensure concrete testing procedures are lawful and the concrete used meets a project’s specific design requirements.”

DOB denied Testwell’s application to renew its concrete-testing license but a State Supreme Court Judge rejected DOB’s denial of the license renewal.  DOB is now appealing that decision.  Last Friday, DOB revoked Stallone’s concrete-testing license, prohibiting them from testing concrete in the City.  The Department Of Buildings is currently working with property owners named in the Stallone indictment to determine whether a project’s final test results meet the structural design requirements.  If they do not, the affected property owners will also be required to follow the re-testing protocol.

“New Yorkers must be confident the City’s buildings have been built to exacting standards and that the concrete, not usually visible, was mixed to proper construction specifications,” added Design and Construction Commissioner Burney.

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF) ?

2009-05-12:  Or … in French: Personnes à Performances Réduites … a term which should be used much more often !

 

For many decades, the language of ‘disability’ has been all over the place, to put it mildly … others might suggest, however, that it lacks coherence, and is fragmented and chaotic !   As a result, it has been difficult to make any sort of solid progress on harmonization … at a technical level … in Europe.

 

Adopted on the 22nd May 2001, the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF), changed that situation for the better.  It is important to emphasise that the ICF is a classification of ‘Health’ … not of ‘Disability’.

 

 

People with Activity Limitations (English) /

Personnes à Performances Réduites (French):

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

 

This term includes …

 

         wheelchair users ;

         people who experience difficulty in walking, with or without aid, e.g. stick, crutch, calliper or walking frame ;

         frail, older people ;

         the very young (people under the age of 5 years) ;

         people who suffer from arthritis, asthma, or a heart condition ;

         the visually and/or hearing impaired ;

         people who have a cognitive impairment disorder, including dementia, amnesia, brain injury, or delirium ;

         women in the later stages of pregnancy ;

         people impaired following the use of alcohol, other ‘social’ drugs, e.g. cocaine and heroin, and some medicines, e.g. psychotropic drugs ;

         people who suffer any partial or complete loss of language related abilities, i.e. aphasia ;

         people impaired following exposure to environmental pollution and/or irresponsible human activity ;

 

and

 

         people who experience a panic attack in a fire situation or other emergency ;

         people, including firefighters, who suffer incapacitation as a result of exposure, during a fire, to poisonous or toxic substances, and/or elevated temperatures.

 

 

Anosognosia:

A neurological disorder marked by the inability of a person to recognize that he/she has an activity limitation or a health condition.

 

 

 

What is the big deal here ?

 

Because of the stigma which still attaches to ‘disability’ … and because some people are unable to recognise that they have an activity limitation or a health condition … depending on self-declaration, alone, for the purposes of developing suitable Fire Safety Management Procedures in a building (of any type) is a recipe for certain failure of those procedures.

 

And … of very direct relevance to design practice generally … compare the weak and inadequate definition of people with disabilities in Part M4 of the Irish Building Regulations (there is no reason to suspect that there will be an earth shattering improvement to this definition in the Revised Technical Guidance Document M … whenever it eventually sees the light of day !) … with the definition of disability in Irish Equality Legislation.

 

Chalk and Cheese !   Or … from the ridiculous to the sublime !   Check it out for yourself.

 

The consequence of this remarkable difference in definitions for anyone involved in the design and/or construction of a building is that … while they might very well be satisfying the Functional Requirements of Parts M and B in the Building Regulations … they will, more than likely, be still leaving the owner and the person who controls or manages the new building open to a complaint under our Equality Legislation.

 

In the case of Workplaces … truly brave is the person who will design a ‘place of work’ just to meet the minimal performance requirements of Building Regulations !

 

 

As a Rule of Thumb, therefore … architects, engineers, facility managers, construction organizations, etc, etc … should become more comfortable working with the concept of People with Activity Limitations.

 

 

This practical Rule of Thumb is also what lies behind the concept of Maximum Credible User Scenario, i.e. building user conditions which are severe, but reasonable to anticipate …

 

         the number of people using a building may increase, on occasions which cannot be specified, to 120% of calculated maximum building capacity ;   and

         10% of people using the building (occupants, visitors and other users) may have an impairment (visual or hearing, physical function, mental, cognitive or psychological, with some impairments not being identifiable, e.g. in the case of anosognosia).

 

 

 

[ Please note well … that miserable piece of legislation … or, bureaucrats’ charter .. the 2005 Disability Act (Number 14 of 2005) … is irrelevant to the above discussion.  But … when Irish Politicians, Senior Civil Servants and the National Disability Authority begin to take seriously the 2006 United Nations Charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities … the 2005 Act will have to be scrapped altogether and/or dramatically re-drafted ! ]

 

.

 

.

 

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sustainable Buildings – Design Agenda for the 21st Century ?

2009-05-06:  From the late 1980’s and the beginning of the 1990’s in European Union (EU) Research Programmes, it was noticeable that the more pressing early concerns about Energy-efficiency – logical after the oil crises of the 1970’s – were beginning to merge with those of Environment-friendliness, i.e. protection of the environment.  Even at that time, however, faint background references to Sustainability were becoming more common.

 

In 1995, therefore, Sustainable Design International developed and introduced the acronym ‘SEED’ … which stands for Sustainable, Environment-friendly, Energy-efficient Development … as a practical control, or check, on our own work output.

 

 

The next break-through came a few years later.  I briefly discussed the wide conceptual basis for our Corporate Design Philosophy in the post: ‘Sustainable Human & Social Development ?’, dated 2009-03-31.  This basis, while still continually evolving, is critical in terms of services provided, performance targets to be achieved, methods of working and relationships with client organizations, builders, craftsmen/women, manufacturers, etc.

 

This should explain the futility, in our humble view, of the ‘Green’ Agenda (as distinct from the ‘Sustainability’ Agenda) … and approaches based solely on Environmental Aspects of Sustainable Development.  They are a complete waste of time and resources.

 

 

Now in 2009, we remain fully convinced that Sustainable Design Solutions are appropriate to local geography, social need, climate, economy and culture … and are ‘person-centred’ and ‘reliability-based’.

 

Forget the images of mud housing and reading by candle light … the Future of our Built Environment is High-Tech, Smart … and Sustainable !   Let there be no doubt !!

 

 

 

Why not begin, so, by looking at a Simple Building Type … Sustainable Housing ?

 

With all of the current hype and fuss about German ‘Passiv’ Houses and Austrian High-Tech Timber Framed Construction … we have been in contact with a number of manufacturers in this region of Central Europe.  After many meetings and detailed discussions, we are disappointed … broken hearted !

 

Below follows our shopping list for the practical, commercial and affordable application, i.e. non-research, of Advanced Systems of Construction (small/medium/large scale projects – new-build and existing projects).

 

N.B.  Current Irish legal requirements and local authority technical control procedures are entirely inadequate.

 

Is anybody out there listening ???

 

 

 

To meet the urgency of Climate Change Adaptation and the challenge of Reliable Sustainability Implementation … a ‘SEED’ Building in Ireland must reach these performance targets:

 

         be set in Sustainable Landscaping (where appropriate) with Life Cycle Sustainable Drainage … and exhibit a considered, harmonious relationship between the building’s ‘interior’ environment and the ‘exterior’ built and social environments ;

 

         have a Minimum Building Life Cycle of 100 Years ;

 

         be Smart/Intelligent, Electronically Mature and facilitate Remote Building Management ;

 

         be properly shown to be Fit for Intended Use (in the Location of Use) … by CE Marking, using European Standards/Norms & European Technical Approvals (refer to Part D of the Irish Building Regulations and similar requirements in other European national building codes, European Union Safety at Work and Product Liability Legislation) ;

 

         be Super Energy-Efficient, with negligible thermal bridging and accidental air seepage … and promote and encourage, by design, Energy Conservation ;

 

         have a substantial component of Renewable Energy & Heat Technologies … sufficient to return a multiple of the building’s energy consumption to an Intelligent Regional or District Grid … and also incorporate Recycling, Rainwater Re-Use and Waste Management Technologies ;

 

         offer a high level of Indoor Air Quality, including proper protection from Natural Radon ;

 

         be Flexible and Adaptable with regard to internal layout, and Accessible for People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF) – in order to prolong Building Life Cycle and maximize Building Usability ;

 

         contain, as standard and for reasons of safety, a Domestic Sprinkler System and a remotely monitored Fire Detection System … plus a Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detection System, with a detection unit in the vicinity of each fuel burning appliance ;

 

and

 

         be Competently Built and Reliably Completed to project programme and cost estimate … with the building’s ‘Real’ Performance-in-Use capable of being tested, and continually monitored, over the complete building life cycle ;

 

and

 

         be simple and straightforward for Building Users/Occupiers to operate.

 

 

 

Principal Areas of Inadequate Performance …

 

1.  Showing Fitness for Intended Use.  Although a Single European Market for the Construction Sector exists on paper (not yet in reality) … this requirement is not well understood by manufacturers … particularly in Germany and Austria, where outdated national approaches to building product/system approval still take precedence over anything at European level.

 

2.  Domestic Sprinkler Systems.  There is a high level of resistance, among most manufacturers, to the installation of these systems.  Not acceptable !!

 

3.  Accessibility of Buildings for People with Activity Limitations.  Not well understood by manufacturers and building organizations (at all levels).  Although there is a lot of legislation in Europe covering this particular issue … it is routinely disregarded and/or very poorly implemented.  In Germany and Austria, for example, the long outdated term ‘barrier-free design’ is still in common use.  Can you believe that ?

 

4.  Radon Protection of Buildings.  Not considered important in Germany and Austria … so manufacturers just don’t bother.

 

5.  Fabric Thermal Performance.  Where building systems are ‘adapted’ for use in Ireland, I have seen thermal performance, as originally designed in Germany/Austria, seriously compromised by the installation of meter boxes and permanent ventilation openings in external walls.  Just the tip of the iceberg !

 

.

 

.

 

END

Enhanced by Zemanta