How Fire Safe Are Skyscrapers? 4

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014
liked this article
Siemens – 300×250 (Expires October 31st 2017)
skyscraper fire
FavoriteLoadingsave article

The rush to build ever higher skyscrapers is accompanied by the need to more effectively deal with fire hazards in these super-tall structures.

A report from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) into the collapse of the Twin Towers in September 2001, which were just over 400 metres tall, found that “the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires.”

In many modern cities where land prices are extremely high, the logic of building upwards is inescapable – as long as the design lessons of the past are properly heeded.

The biggest lesson came over one hundred years ago from the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York, when a catastrophic fire killed 146 garment workers in 1911 and led to new legislation on fire safety in tall buildings. Aside from the 9/11 terrorist attack, the worst recorded tall building fire was in Sao Paulo, Brazil in a 1974 blaze that killed 179.

For the new generation of super-buildings, fire safety takes on a whole new dimension, because – beyond sprinkler systems – it can be extremely difficult to tackle a fire a kilometre up in the sky.

There have also been several notable cases where a sprinkler system has made things worse, with cold water coming into contact with non-fire rated glass and causing the glass to break, thereby allowing more oxygen to reach the seat of the fire. The same is true of tempered glass which has a limited fire-rating.

Tim Kempster, MD of Wrightstyle, the fire and blast resistant systems supplier, is concerned that in the headlong rush to build faster and higher, issues of fire safety in some countries may not be adequately addressed or, just as bad, that components in that building may not have proper fire-safety characteristics.

For example, in Grozny, Russia last year, fire destroyed the tallest skyscraper in the North Caucus region, a 145-metre tall structure with 40 storeys. Within two hours, fire had engulfed three sides of the building. It spread so quickly because, it was reported, combustible building materials were used in the building’s construction.

“We have publicly raised concerns about how fire regulations were being applied across parts of the Middle East, and changed our certification processes , so that a fire certification on one of our glazing systems could not be unilaterally applied on another project,” Kempster said.

Statistically, a significant proportion of fire fatalities and injuries occur while occupants are attempting to get out of a building, generally within paths of travel to the exit. When it comes to evacuating a tall building, events like the World Trade Centre have had an impact on the design for fire, although not always deliberate. The question that arises is: do you really need to get people out?

The most effective way of dealing with fire at high altitude is by means of fire compartmentation: keeping the fire contained in one protected area and preventing it from spreading. A contained fire can be dealt with – an uncontrolled fire can’t.

“A rule of thumb for fire safety in supertall buildings is that any fire should be able to burn itself out, without external intervention, and without building collapse,” explained Kempster. “That allows for a limited evacuation of people on the affected floor and on floors immediately above and below the fire.”

Everyone else he says should be “defended in place” – a realistic strategy when you might have elderly or disabled occupants stranded 200 storeys up.

“Options to evacuate or defend in place are essential for tall buildings,” agreed Denny Verghese, Leader – Fire Engineering at Meinhardt. “Depending on the type of building and the nature of the occupants, these options can aid in providing a sound basis for the performance of a building in the event of a fire.

“Modern tall buildings can be significantly different from historical building stock, which form the basis of most building codes. Building codes around the world have prescribed requirements generally based on thresholds on building height, size and occupancy type.”

In terms of fire protection systems, research demonstrates that a combination of a sprinkler system and non-fire rated glass is not a good safety solution. An “active” sprinkler system needs good maintenance and activation sequences to work properly, whereas “passive” fire-rated glazing systems are guaranteed to work – if the right systems have been specified.

Sprinkler systems can also be compromised by low water pressure – a major consideration in very high buildings, and PVC water supply pipes can be damaged by fire and rendered inoperable.

A report published last year on fire safety design in tall buildings was presented to a major Asia-Oceanic symposium. It concluded that “only once we understand fires in modern compartments can we truly assess the critical components of the fire safety strategy and begin to provide relevant, refined, innovative fire safety that truly reflects the nature of tall buildings.”

FavoriteLoadingsave article


 characters available
*Please refer to our comment policy before submitting
  1. Phil Watkins

    I feel the bigger ‘hidden’ problem will be building management and maintenance in high rise structures and possibly the biggest concern will be with those sited in the Middle East. All of these highly technical fire engineered buildings require careful, dedicated and competent personnel to maintain them; it’s not just a case of a few tests and inspections and how pretty the appearance is. They require continual monitoring with strictly controlled and managed contractors to ensure high maintenance standards are achieved. Failing to do this will result in compartments being compromised, active fire safety suppression systems and facilities failing early thereby placing some occupants in potentially untenable fire situations.

  2. Julian P

    It's reassuring to learn that these measures are in place – nothing could be more horrifying than a fire disaster at a high altitude.

  3. David Chandler

    Everyone in the industry would be rubbing their heart with this story. The complex questions of Building Standards, deemed to comply, self-certification, questionable third party certification and an increasing flow of off shore supplied construction elements sit at the core of this conversation. New high tech materials, curtain walls and even whole buildings such as hospitals, schools and aged care accommodation fall into this category. The time has come for Australia to question if it can sustain domestic based standards, codes and compliance regimes. as we move to a global market would it make sense to engage the EU standards? Or even just outsource Australia's construction integrity to New Zealand's BRANZ.

  4. Paul May

    The solution for any high rise building to preserve both life and property has to be a combination of adequate automatic sprinklers and sound construction. I agree automatic sprinklers need maintenance, but then so does compartmentation to ensure fire doors operate as intended and cable risers/ventilation ducts don't propagate the fire. The loss experience of FM Global clients over a ten year period (2001-2011) illustrates the advantage of adequate sprinkler protection in high-rise building fires. Where sprinkler protection was either not present or inadequate, the average gross loss was approximately 19 times that of the average gross loss in which sprinklers was adequate.