20
Feature Fire, Safety & Security
Compartmentation –
So important in saving lives
The ASFP Red Book can be downloaded
for free of charge at www.asfp.org.uk
There is a worrying statistic in
the field of fire protection.
It is that 44% of fire related
deaths happen to people who were
outside the room where the blaze
originated. The statistic is worrying
because these deaths are
preventable.
In April 1996, a fire broke out in
Düsseldorf airport. A welder had set
fire to some polystyrene insulation
and the resultant blaze led to 17
deaths. Eight people were killed in a
VIP lounge, several hundred metres
from the seat of the fire. Smoke and
noxious gasses had spread
uncontrollably though the ventilation
ducts and caught the occupants of
the lounge unawares. Had built-in
fire protection measures been
adequate, these deaths would not
have occurred.
In another tragic case, in January
2004, a faulty fuse led to the deaths
of 14 residents in the Rosepark Care
Home in Glasgow. The fire remained
in a fairly contained area, but the
build up of pressure led to thick
smoke being forced though every
part of the home and the elderly
patients all died of smoke
inhalation. Again, these deaths were
preventable.
When a building is designed, there
are regulations governing the size of
its compartments in order to reduce
the risk of fire spread. The walls,
floors and ceilings of these
compartments will have a fire and
insulation rating, generally ranging
from ½ hour to a maximum of four
hours – depending on the usage of
the premises, the sighting of the
compartment, or the presence of
sprinkler systems. The idea is that in
the event of a fire the flame, heat
and smoke produced will stay within
the compartment, thus reducing the
risk to both lives and property.
This is called compartmentation.
The construction of the walls,
floors and ceilings will be carried
out in accordance with the design
criteria, but in order for any
compartment to be usable by its
occupants, breaches have to be
made for such elements as doors,
mechanical and electrical services.
It is suck breaches that need to be
addressed by the installation of
built-in fire measures.
A compartment wall runs from
floor slab to ceiling soffit and a fire
door may well be sat on top of a
It’s faster online...enquire at www.abc-d.co.uk/info Enquiry Number 17
Andy Kay, chariman at the Association for Specialist Fire
Protection (ASFP) discusses built-in fire protection...
computer deck/raised access floor
with a suspended ceiling above.
Try pushing up some ceiling tiles
above the door and you will often be
faced with multiple services passing
though the wall. If they have not
been adequately protected, the
money spent on the fire door has
been wasted.
The types of material used to
protect these services are generally
referred to as fire-stopping
products. Full details are contained
in the ASFP ‘Red Book’, which can
be downloaded free of charge at:
www.asfp.org.uk. They seal around
compartment breaches and fill
construction joints, thereby
reinstating the integrity of the
wall, floor or ceiling.
Such products also need to
accommodate the possibility of
services burning away and leaving
holes in the compartment. In many
applications, fire-stopping products
will also have to accommodate
general movement. Sealants used
around hot water pipes, or chiller
pipes, can be subject to
expansion/contraction of the pipework.
If the sealant is incapable of
meeting this criteria, it is likely that
it will fail when exposed to fire.
Smoke is the biggest killer and
accounts for 75% of fire deaths.
Smoke expands rapidly to fill any
sized void and can travel at up to
10m per second. In a fire, the
pressure within a compartment will
build significantly. Smoke and
noxious gasses will be forced
through the smallest gaps or
imperfections of fit. It is critical,
therefore, that when applying
fire-stop products, a cold smoke
seal is achieved.
So who carries the can if the
compartmentation measures are
proved to be inadequate after a fire
has occurred? Well, invariably the
building owners are first in the firing
line. In Düsseldorf, the airport
authorities were sued by four
insurance companies and were
ordered to pay $11m in
compensation. The court judged the
airport's building contractors to be
negligent and so, in turn, the airport
sued the contractors. Criminal
prosecutions were also brought
against the airport owners by the
families of the deceased. In the
Rosepark case, partners of the firm
running the home were accused of
twelve charges, including breaches
of the Health and Safety at Work Act
1974, the Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999, and of the
Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.
The fact is that everyone involved
in the design, construction, product
supply and running of a building
could end up in court should the
unthinkable occur.
For more information about the ASFP
use our online enquiry service at
www.abc-d.co.uk/info
quoting number 229
Send in a response
claire.mackle@centaur.co.uk i
To view a Ceros magazine you need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser and have the flash player 8 or higher installed. To install the latest flash player, click the icon above, install the flash plugin and then click here to refresh this page.