Organised by leading coatings manufacturer Sherwin-Williams Protective & Marine Coatings the discussion set out to clarify how and where responsibility for fire protection should fall in the construction of increasingly complex steel structures.
From an architect to the Fire Service and RISCauthority, the debate brought together leading professionals from a range of sectors involved in the construction of modern architecture.
Held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) central London the discussion – which I chaired as IFSEC Global editor (and of which I will next week publish a longer transcript) – examined issues of responsibility for fire engineering safety in the supply chain from the architect to the installing contractor.
Unsafe design
Bob Glendenning, Manager of Fire Engineering at Sherwin-Williams Protective & Marine Coatings, outlined the three key concerns that had prompted the decision to organise the roundtable.
“With regards to the design element of the fire protection, there is unsafe design due to ignorance, there is unsafe design due to bad practice such as assuming utilisation and web stability of cellular beams, and there is unsafe design by design.
“By that I mean the kind of design which explicitly excludes adherence to the existing guidance because of time, cost or due to the design being purely ambient.”
Paul Bussey of the Regulations and Standards Group at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), said his profession had “to know at little about a lot” and had a tough job understanding their responsibilities vis-à-vis fire engineering.
“From an architect’s standpoint, you would not know what level of protection is relevant unless a building is purpose-built,” he said. “It is a matter of risk, and most buildings don’t catch fire.
“There is a disconnect between the designers and the contractors and the fire engineering protection is now so complex that even architects struggle to find their way through guidance.”
Danny Hopkin, Chair of the Institute of Fire Engineers Fire Resistance Special Interest Group, bemoaned a lack of awareness among building owners or managers of buildings regarding the statutory requirements. He also noted that much fire protection guidance is around 50 years old.
Fire Protection Association technical director Dr Jim Glockling was a prominent voice in the discussion. As well as talking extensively about the insurance industry’s role in fire engineering he suggested that architects, designers and estimators from the top down should all be better informed about developments in design and fire protection.
Building Information Modelling
Observing that fire protection only becomes tangible at the end of the risk process Dr Glockling also mooted the idea of fire protection being incorporated into Building Information Modelling (BIM). Sherwin-Williams had already been doing this for several years, said Bob Glendenning.
While there seemed little appetite for additional legislation, there was a feeling that ageing legislation perhaps needed updating to reflect the unique demands of modern steel buildings.
It was also agreed that steps should be taken to raise awareness of the pertinent issues across relevant levels of the supply chain, of design and installation, from architects through to estimators including building control officers.
This in turn would drive the work being undertaken by the Institute of Fire Engineers (IFE) on Building Regulations.
The model adopted in Ireland, where building control sign-off has been tightened, was also suggested as worthy of emulation, while delegates agreed that a third-party scheme to regulate the design process should be considered too.
The delegates at the event were:
Enjoy the latest fire and security news, updates and expert opinions sent straight to your inbox with IFSEC Insider's essential weekly newsletters. Subscribe today to make sure you're never left behind by the fast-evolving industry landscape.
Sign up now!
