|
 Despite the acknowledged importance of fire safety, its place on people’s agenda does not always appear to take precedence over such things as social, economical or political concerns. In this month’s column, I would like to discuss whether there is a similar situation with regard to climate change.
In the December issue of the journal, I mentioned that fire engineering has an important role to play in reducing the carbon footprint in buildings. However, environmental experts do not usually advocate this, and regrettably not even fire safety professionals. Although I have come across a few articles written on fire engineering and climate change, I do not think there is general interest shown by the industry – and that has prompted me to look again at this issue.
At this point, perhaps I should pause and note that past president Professor David Charters has just completed a review of the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) Policy Position with respect to fire policy of governments. One of his recommendations was that IFE should enable all fire engineers to play their part in further reducing the impact of fire on the environment, and I strongly support that position.
GHG emissions
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the buildings sector has a very high potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through reduction in energy consumption and embodied energy in buildings.
I would argue that in the buildings sector, fire engineers, through performance-based fire engineering, make a significant contribution towards this cause, but have not as yet received the recognition they deserve. It is true that GHG emissions in buildings can be substantially reduced using much resource and modern technology. But it is equally important that we safeguard the expended time and money against the incidences of fire, bearing in mind GHG and other hazardous emissions that even a medium-sized fire would release. The contribution from fire engineering professionals is to offer such insurance by way of well-engineered buildings and facilities, such that the incidence of fire is reduced and, in the event of an outbreak, the extent of damage and GHG emissions are minimised.
Modern buildings are shifting towards being ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’, and many features in such buildings require meticulous performance-based fire engineering input. However, one of the fundamental problems is that fire safety professionals are often not involved in the initial stage of innovative designs. This, coupled with the lack of associate budget and lead time, could result in haphazard shortcuts that compromise the final safety measures.
The use of recycled or alternative building materials may entail research in terms of combustibility and fire spread; structural stability in case of fire; generation of hazardous products of combustion; and compartment fire-resistant periods.
There is a growing trend for double-skin façade in buildings and for the structure to be set at a particular angle for passive solar gains. This may affect emergency vehicular access or fire suppression operations. There is a wealth of research on the functions of double skin-façade: its structural design, ventilation of the cavity, geometry, etc. However, there is inadequate research on its fire safety impact. For instance, there are still debates over the effects of double-skin façade on fire behaviour in compartments, spread of heat and smoke between compartments, and how it affects operational fire crews in firefighting and rescue operations.
Atria and large voids that maximize natural lighting tend to cause large-sized and irregularly shaped compartments, and hence fire detection and smoke management complications; light wells may create inconspicuous paths for fire spread; floor voids used as cable runs and air plenum require fire-stopping or fire detection; natural ventilation incorporated in the building envelope may affect wind and stack effects, or pressurisation of escape routes; use of roof space for photovoltaic systems would affect designation of refuge areas; alternative fire suppression mediums, such as water mist, reclaimed or grey water to conserve firefighting water, will require validation. There is such a broad array of fire engineering applications.
It is envisaged that most, if not all, nations will formulate relevant policies and implementation programmes on the recommendations of the IPCC, if they have not done so already. This is yet another opportunity for the Institution and all fire engineering professionals to collaborate their efforts to serve the community by advocating their part in this worthy cause, and support its implementation with the necessary skills and technology.
Charles Chu FSDSM, CPM, BEng (Hons), CEng, FIFireE, FHKIE
|