Dr Jim Glockling, technical director of the Fire Protection Association (FPA), discusses whether it is time to consider toxicity under fire when selecting building materials for certain high risk situations and occupancies.

 

 

 

The built environment lags behind other areas, such as transport, in its consideration of fire toxicity as part of the material selection requirement – is it time for that to change?

In today’s civilised society, as we go about our daily business our wellbeing is afforded many protections against perils of varying types and likelihood. In the case of fire many of these protections are quite visible and well understood by all – they are part of our upbringing: the fire extinguisher in the corridor; the sprinkler head and smoke detector in the ceiling; the hose reel on the wall; and the myriad of signage denoting the presence of fuels, need to control ignition sources, routes of escape, and fire doors, to name but a few. Other protections are less obvious such as the size of the space, its layout and the fire properties of the materials forming the structure. In certain special situations, these protections are extended even further to consider toxicity. Whether you are sitting on a train, on the London Underground, flying on a plane or travelling by boat, the likelihood is that the materials surrounding you have been specifically selected to ensure that when there is a fire, the toxicity of the products resulting from their involvement will have a lower chance of impeding your escape, or indeed disabling you all together. On this point let’s be clear – we are not talking about whether the materials can natively sustain burning or not; it is an evaluation of whether, under the influence of fire, the presence of these materials will act to make the overall threat greater by producing toxic byproducts. This is very different to the selection of materials on the basis of whether they are natively ‘combustible’ or not.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 2)

 

But clearly these are very special circumstances; in transport situations you are often remote from help, with your safety assured only by the ability of the inbuilt passive systems to keep you properly separated from the fire, and the performance of active systems such as sprinklers to protect you from the threat at your location or any area you must pass through. This is clearly not a situation you ever find in the built environment … or is it? Is the plight of a person at the top of a high rise building, or someone of limited mobility in a lower environment, not basically exactly the same as someone far out to sea on a boat? They are all dependant on inbuilt protection, rather than their ability to allow you to leave the scene, or others’ ability to arrive and provide help.

Why has the potential toxicity of building materials under fire been neglected as a consideration for so many years? One issue is that the perceived threat from the unregulated contents of a room probably present a much higher and more immediate threat to any toxins that might ingress the occupied space first. This assumption is obviously dependant upon a number of key assumptions. Firstly, that the world is a perfect place and that what is drawn on paper is what gets delivered at the end of the day with computer assisted design (CAD) level accuracy – I think you need to look no further than the recent large hotel, care home, and apartment fires to make a judgement on that. Even if build quality could be tightened up to the point of installation perfection, there is still the human element – the fire door most likely propped open with a fire extinguisher emptied of its contents in the last student water fight, or the broken door closer never replaced. Cynical possibly, but even when everything is done right, we have to question whether our Building Regulations appropriately separate people from fire toxins. In the recent FPA / RISCAuthority study looking at the implications of penetrating (legal) rainscreen cladding systems with legally un-firestopped plastic vents (the external envelope of the building is not considered a fire compartment bounding wall), it was found that enough toxic products entered through a 100mm kitchen vent into an occupied 50m3 room to cause incapacitation and possibly death within 10 minutes of the fire breaking in to the part of the cladding housing the vent. All of this without breaking into the occupied space – an external fire internal to the cladding system. How does this scenario figure with ‘stay put’ policies?

Toxicity is a complex area. The FPA work demonstrated graphically the need to burn the materials with accuracy if you are to truly understand the toxic threat. The degree of ventilation is crucial – burning the same insulating material in the open poses a very different toxic threat than would be achieved if burning in the underventilated confines of, for example, a cladding system void.

There seems to be a growing desire within Europe to open up the debate on fire toxicity in the built environment, greatly added to by other worrying studies on the long term cancer causing toxins in soil following major fires, and indeed the result of firefighter exposure to these over their careers. In this respect debates around ‘combustibility’ are unhelpful – we all need to be talking about material ‘participation’. Some materials do not natively burn – if they do, this can often be adjusted by the use of fire retarding agents, but what if that simply exchanges a burning threat for a toxic threat when fire acts upon them? – is that an OK thing to do? The answer is that it is if it’s not measured. Surely it’s time for a more balanced view on the total threat materials pose to occupants – especially for those who by merit of the complexity of the environment they occupy, or constraints on their own physicality, might just need more protection from what at the end of the day is the biggest known killer in fire – smoke toxicity.

 

The Fire Protection Association

 

 

 

The huge new hub will help kick-start the transformation of Strangeways.

 

The first images of The Manchester College’s proposed new £100m city campus campus on the site of the old Boddingtons Brewery have been released.

College chiefs bought the Strangeways site, which is currently used as a car park, in April.

Now they’ve submitted plans to transform it into a ‘world-class’ centre for digital media, computing and visual arts.

The centrepiece of the five-storey building will be a distinctive ‘Jewel Box’ 200-seat theatre, surrounded by a courtyard.

Designed by SimpsonHaugh, the architecture firm behind Deansgate’s Beetham Tower, the campus will also include a second 100 seat theatre, library, music and arts studios, a film school, graphic design and computer suites, a training beauty salon, roof terrace and a restaurant.

A second phase of the college housing a business school could also be built at a future date if funding can be found.

The college will include a library, music and arts studios, a film school,  graphic design and computer suites, a training beauty salon, roof terrace and a resturant

Documents submitted with the planning application reveal that as part of the development the college plans to ‘consolidate the existing 14 locations onto just five main campuses whilst transforming the curriculum and accommodation to meet the specific economic and skills needs of the Greater Manchester area’.

Alongside the new city centre site the other four campuses being retained are: Openshaw, which will focus on construction, automotive and engineering, care and childcare, sport and public services; Harpurhey and Wythenshawe, which will become north and south ‘satellite learning hubs’; and the City Labs, based in the former Manchester Eye Hospital on Oxford Road, which will house medical sciences.

The new campus will be one of five sites the college plans to run

It’s thought that will pave the way for the college to sell off its remaing sites for new homes, hotels and offices.

 

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 2)

 

The college’s current main city centre campus is on Chorlton Street.

Strangeways is a major regeneration focus for the council and it’s hoped the college plans will help kickstart the transformation of the area.

Last year town hall chiefs published a wider plan for the Strangeways area that would see city centre development – including homes – move out into the neighbourhood.

By 2024, the college hopes to have expanded to take 15,000 students as the city’s booming high school population moves on to further education.

 

 

Source: Manchester Evening News

 

A report from insurer Zurich Municipal – which insures ‘about half’ of all UK schools and universities – noted that two thirds of schools ‘are not properly prepared’ for a fire.

The Guardian reported on the Zurich investigation and report, which came after it undertook 1,000 site inspection over the last two years. The insurer has written to the government and called for ‘urgent action to improve’ fire protection on school premises, with 67% rated as having ‘poor’ fire protection systems and only 5% awarded an ‘excellent’ rating – conversely, 29% of Scottish schools had an ‘excellent’ rating.

In turn, it called for sprinklers to be made mandatory, as in Scotland systems are ‘legally required in all new and major refurbished schools’, while in England they are not mandatory in all schools ‘and fewer than one in six’ new schools have been built with systems installed. Zurich’s inspectors not only considered sprinklers but also building combustibility and modern methods of construction, fire detection systems and smoking controls on their visits.

It stated that there are ‘more than 1,000’ fires in school premises every year, which cost an average of £2.8m for larger incidents and closing sites ‘not just for pupils but also the wider community’ in out of school hours. This comes while the government has ‘yet to report back’ on its own consultation undertaken on fire safety design in schools, which it launched in March 2019.

Tilden Watson, head of education at Zurich, stated: ‘A change in government legislation to make sprinklers in schools mandatory not only protects children while they are in school, it often contains the fire to the room it starts in when it happens out of school hours. Not only does this minimise the level of damage caused, it also negates the aftermath, which often leads to months or even years of disruption for children’s education while the school is repaired.’

 

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 4)

Andy Dark, assistant general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, added: ‘We’ve made it clear in the past that newly built schools and other high-risk buildings should have sprinkler systems and we fully support Zurich Municipal’s call on the government to change the law to make them mandatory. Ideally, sprinklers would be fitted in all schools of whatever age and size. Sprinklers can assist in limiting the spread of fire, the damage it will cause and giving occupants additional time to escape, as well as reducing the risks faced by firefighters attending the incident.’

The Department for Education responded: ‘Schools are fundamentally safe places, designed to be evacuated as quickly as possible in the event of a fire. All schools are required to have an up-to-date fire risk assessment and to conduct regular fire drills – and all new school buildings must be signed off by an inspector to certify that they meet the requirements of building regulations. Where sprinklers are considered necessary, they must be installed.’

Earlier this year, and having made similar calls in 2017, the National Fire Chiefs Council ‘once again urged’ the government to consider fitting sprinklers in new build schools and schools undergoing refurbishment, as part of its response to the call for evidence on the technical review of Building Bulletin 100: Design for fire safety in schools (BB100).

Additionally, in August London Brigade revealed that all 57 of the city’s schools that have suffered fires this year had no sprinklers fitted, and added that it had ‘long been calling’ for mandatory sprinkler installations in all new school builds, as well as for all schools to be retrofitted with sprinklers ‘during major refurbishment’.

Find out how the Fire Protection Association can help with the

fire risk assessment in your school

click here

 

Bali’s Green School recently celebrated its first decade of educating toddlers through teenagers (and their digital nomad parents) about eco-ethical design and cooperative living. Set in a village near Ubud, this tropical jungle campus of quirky bamboo pavilions has become a globally influential exhibition of one of this century’s significant architectural trends.

There is a major renaissance in correctly growing, cutting, treating, drying and laminating bamboo so it can be used with confidence for substantial and near-permanent structures. Much of the inspiration for this has come from Green School founders John and Cynthia Hardy and their daughter Elora. Their TED talks and YouTube videos have been widely watched.

John Hardy talks about his Green School dream.

Bamboo always has been a basic construction material in tropical latitudes. But generally it has been used for inexpensive shacks, stalls, fences, scaffolding and sunscreens. If not treated, bamboo is highly susceptible to fire and naturally degrades within two or three years, because insects and fungi rapidly devour the sugar-and-starch-rich sap inside the canes.

In Bali during the 1990s, Irish-Australian designer Linda Garland pioneered contemporary uses of bamboo. She worked with University of Hamburg scientist Walter Liese to treat bamboo against the ravages of powderpost beetles and turn it into a commercially viable building material.

One essential preparation technique is to drill through the centres of the canes with long steel rods, then apply repellent and fire-resistant chemicals. Often this involves a soaking solution that includes borax salt powder. The bamboo is then dried out for several days to weeks.

Technology helps transform practices

Ancient practices in China and Japan remain the gold standard for durable bamboo buildings.

Traditional Japanese rectilinear designs had gable roofs and rooms matching the dimensions of tatami mats.

Some Chinese bridges date back as far as the 10th century AD. Floating villages (bamboo platforms with clusters of huts) supported dozens of families as recently as the 17th century.

The bamboo bridge at the Green School has an ancient inspiration. Davina Jackson, Author provided

In Ecuador, archaeologists found a bamboo funeral chamber carbon-dated to 7500 BC. Ecuadorian bamboo, known as caña de Guayaquil (or Guaya), is exported to Peru, Colombia and other Latin American countries. Here bamboo buildings tend to be weatherproofed by thick coatings of mud. (David Witte has written a thesis on historical and contemporary bamboo buildings in South America.)

Today, Bali’s Green School and several associated enterprises, are prominent in a third millennium movement to build geometrically irregular, often sinuous, structures.

The irregular, sinuous structures of the Green School seen from above. John Singleton, courtesy of Green School Bali, Author provided (No reuse)

These outré styles obviously have been influenced by the trans-millennial technology revolution in digital modelling and manufacturing. Extremely asymmetrical architecture can now be fabricated precisely with metal, glass and masonry components.

However, the Hardys and their international team of bamboo building experts craft small-scale physical models of their designs. The artisans then copy these models on site at full scale. This manual system need not stop designers from sketching initial concepts on their screens.

Elora Hardy talks about the potential of bamboo, as both a sustainable resource and inspiration for innovative buildings.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 4)

What happens at the school?

The Green School educates more than 500 students from pre-kindergarten to Year 12. It complements standard curriculum subjects with various practical tasks and projects that build healthy and ecological skills and habits. Teachers, and parents co-opted as project leaders and mentors, encourage pupils to design and build specific structures that provide useful amenities for the campus.

One recent middle-school project produced a series of tiny shelters as quiet retreats. Each one is to be occupied by only one child at a time. A campus guide notes that Sir Richard Branson recently climbed into one of these cubby houses, a tiny netted bamboo platform hanging from a tree branch, without upsetting the apparently fragile enclosure.

Elora Hardy’s team at architecture, interior and landscape design company Ibuku designed and made most of the school’s buildings. They also have created yoga and cooking school pavilions, hotels, houses, restaurant interiors and permaculture gardens around Bali and in some Asian cities.

Students make biosoap in the Kul Kul Connection program. Courtesy of Green School Bali, Author provided

An affiliated venture also operates Green Camp residential courses for children and their parents visiting for one to 11 days. Their meals are cooked with vegetables grown at the Hardys’ Kul Kul permaculture farm.

Another family venture, Bamboo U, led by Orin Hardy, provides hands-on training for potential builders. The courses cover bamboo selection (different uses of seven preferred Balinese species), treatment, building design, modelling and on-site fabrication, including professionals from Ibuku as teachers.

A global embracing of bamboo

During the Green School’s first decade, a new generation of studios led by young Asian architects gained prominence and international awards for their creativity with bamboo. They include: Vo Trong Nghia (VTNA) and H&P Architects in Vietnam; Nattapon Klinsuwan (NKWD), Chiangmai Life Architects and Bambooroo in Thailand; Abin Design Studio and Mansaram Architects in India; Bambu Art in Bali; Atelier Sacha Cotture in the Philippines; HWCD, Penda (Chris Precht) and Li Xiaodong in China; and William Lim (CL3) in Hong Kong.

And some long-established, internationally renowned architecture firms have completed projects with significant uses of bamboo. They include Japanese architects Kengo Kuma, Arata Isozaki and Shigeru Ban, London-based Foster + Partners and Italy’s Renzo Piano.

Many bamboo buildings today include timber or concrete slab floors because these can be laid consistently flat. But researchers at Empa, the Swiss materials research academy, have developed highly durable and temperature-inert floor and deck boards made with a composite of bamboo fibres and resin. These prototype boards are being tested in one of the Vision Wood student apartment modules slotted into Empa’s NEST testing facility at Dübendorf.

Meanwhile, the Green School is expanding from Bali. An associate campus opens next year on the west coast of New Zealand’s North Island – where bamboo is not naturally grown or legally used as an architectural material. Instead the Taranaki school will build aerial classrooms – pods on poles – using various local species of pine.

Source: The Conversation