Author Topic: School Fires - High Loss Examples  (Read 22701 times)

Offline Owen66

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« on: February 16, 2006, 06:41:40 PM »
Hi,

I am currently writting a dissertation for final year study on a Building Services Degree Course.

I am currently undertaking an analysis of the effects of recent change on the design of new schools from a fire perspective

Whilst wading through Building Bulletin 100 and AD-B along with various publications on arson in schools it appears school fires are an all too common occurence.

I believe the devastating school fires have occured in some of our older system built schools (bad compartmentation etc) however I was curious about schools built since the relaxation of crown immunity - I have searched (without success) for evidence of major loss school fires in a modern (post 2000) school.

I would be obliged if someone could highlight such a case  - my intention being to draw some conclusion as to whether AD-B has provided a means of reducing the impact of arson, and if so will BB 100 fill this role if/when adopted as the de facto standard (assuming AD-B will no longer deal with schools)

Regards

Owen

Chris Houston

  • Guest
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2006, 10:42:06 PM »
Owen,

Many schools were built when the school leaving age rose.  Lots of consortia constructions were used.  The normal rules did not apply to these buildings and, as you say, many lack fire stopping and are of a lightweight construction.

The thing is - many of these buildings remain.  Not much of the UK school stock is comprised of post-2000 buildings.

Many of the new schools being built at the moment are fire engineered solutions and don't follow the recommendations of ADB.

Offline alexl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2006, 09:08:59 AM »
in my area (Scottish Borders) and with the wonderfull PPP all the new schools are being built with fire suppression systems as standard. This is an insurance driven requirement although we have a very low almost nil occurence of willfull fire raising at schools.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2006, 09:14:46 AM »
Its mostly an inner city thing.

ADB isnt intended to prevent arson. But it should help to reduce damage to the building should arson occur.

BB100 is intended to pick up anti arson issues.

A fire engineer told me that schools being funded by PFI ect tend to include fire suppresion wheras publicly funded ones tend not to. The PFI investors need to protect their investment, but the financing shcemes applicable to eduacation authorities do not offer any incentive to protect the building beyond the statutory minimum.

Offline Owen66

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2006, 09:17:47 AM »
Thanks for the response.

As I understand it, property losses in UK schools are horrific - usually a result of fires in system built 60's and 70's schools. Relaxation of crown immunity means that schools now have life protection dealt with by AD-B (or as you say by a fire engineered solution).

With the revision to AD-B suggesting it will  no  longer deal with schools and the introduction of BB100 it seems to me that the adoption of property protection strategies will be mandatory. Whilst adoption of property protection in BB 100 may well be as a result of our fire history, I was just exploring the idea that a modern school built to AD-B (or a fire engineered alternative) already provides a good level of property protection as a spin off and as such should property protection be a mandatory requirement or a risk based descision.

Clearly, compartmentation issues in BB 100 will cut across and limit strategies for daylighting and natural vent a well as limiting the architectural style. The exemplar schools compendium published prior to  BB 100 may actually prove to be unbuildable.

Hence my query as to any evidence of a major loss fire in a modern school - or is BB100 reacting to a situation that is an historic legacy of the system builds.

Regards

Owen

Offline Owen66

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2006, 09:23:53 AM »
With regard to the sprinkler issue - it appears to me that the lobbying by the sprinkler industry is proving to be very effective.

Ultimately then should we just bin the bulk of BB 100 and mandate sprinkler coverage for both life and property protection in new schools.

Retrofit to older buildings may not be so easy - but potentially money saved by a reduced arson impact of the new (sprinklered) scools could fund this.

Regards

Owen

Offline alexl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2006, 09:46:39 AM »
retro fitting older schools would be costly however if an enhanced afd system linked to a collector service was fitted that could reduce the impact of willfull fire raising by alerting the emergency services quicker.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2006, 09:49:14 AM »
It is not just the sprinkler industry that wants to see schools sprinklered.  The insurance industry does, the fire brigades do and the ODPM do too.  Some local authoroties insist upon them, and obvioulsy school governours, head teachers and parents might demand them given the increasing trend of daytime fires they are a life safety as well as a property protection strategy.

Remember, if a school goes on fire, there is not much else that will put that fire out or control the fire until the fire brigade turn up.

Schools frequently get set on fire by arsonists, on average once every 7 or 8 years.  That figure is higher for high schools and inner cirty schools, but it is not exclusivly an inner city problem.  In fact many inner city schools are the ones best geared up to solve the problems.

When a cause has been identified (i.e. excluding unknown ones) depending on what figures you use, arson accounts for between 70 and 90% of fires in schools.

I've recently been to two new PFI schools, both in the most deprived areas of the UK, both lacked sprinklers because the people building them did not have to worry about the costs of insuring them and they were designed to comply with the minimum legal requirements rather than incorporate good risk management.

In 2004 arson caused £74m of damage to UK schools, it was £96m in 2003, these were the direct costs and don't take account of stress, lost teaching aids, the cost of transporting students to alternative locations, impact on education, loss of reputation, loss of community facilities etc etc.

Of course these costs were born by the insurance industry but ultimatly they will be passed back to society.

It would be interesting to compare figures with the US where schools tend to have sprinklers, even though they don't tend to have the same arson problems as us (in fact I'm not aware of any country that does, it seems to be a UK issue) but after some deaths many decades ago in schools, the US took the approach of installing sprinklers.  We are fortunate to have not suffered from any deaths due to fire in UK schools for a long time.  I worry, having heard about daytime fires in schools, that our luck might run out.

As always, I would remind readers that these are my personal opinions.

PS Owen I am looking into such a fire, but all the biggest ones  that spring to mind are consortia type constructions or traditional buildings where the fire has spread through roof spaces.

PPS Examples of exist where sprinklers have saved schools in the UK recently, but no examples exist of a fully sprinklered building has been lost if a fire (any class of building).

Chris Houston

  • Guest
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2006, 09:58:04 AM »
Quote from: alexl
retro fitting older schools would be costly however if an enhanced afd system linked to a collector service was fitted that could reduce the impact of willfull fire raising by alerting the emergency services quicker.
Here is the difference:

Fire Detection

A fire starts, it may or may not be in the same room as the detector, which may or may not add say 45 minutes to detector activation, but let's assume the best case scenario and it's in the same room.  3 minutes later the fire grows big enough to produce enough smoke, 3 minutes later the detector activates, within seconds the alarm goes off and a signal goes to the alarm receiving centre.  They take 2 minutes to phone the fire brigade, who take another 2 minutes to enter vehicles and leave the station.  15 minutes driving.  Assuming water supplies are OK, assuming access is easy, assuming the fire brigade are able to save the building (it's been burning for 25 minutes so far) it might take them 10 minutes to get equipment out and start applying water.  In a building without good compartmentation and not life at risk, they might do defensive fire fighting only.

Sprinklers.

A fire starts, it grows until the the ceiling temperature is 68 degrees centrigate.  Water is immediatly sprayed to the area on fire only.  This will keep the fire under control, or may even put it out.

Given fire brigades do go on strike, given they may or may not respond to fire detection and alarm systems, given the need to ensure fire fighter life safety, fire detection is not much of substitute for fire sprinklers.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2006, 10:26:40 AM »
Chris - Primark may have something to say about no sprinklered building ever being lost.

They lost an enormous building only recently, the sprinkler supply had failed for some reason so the fire took out the whole building all 600,000m3 of it. Sprinklers are great but lets not get carried away, they only work, if they are working.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2006, 10:35:42 AM »
Quote from: wee brian
Chris - Primark may have something to say about no sprinklered building ever being lost.

They lost an enormous building only recently, the sprinkler supply had failed for some reason so the fire took out the whole building all 600,000m3 of it. Sprinklers are great but lets not get carried away, they only work, if they are working.
Sorry, I should have added that the sprinkler system should be turned on to be effective.

Offline Owen66

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2006, 11:17:59 AM »
Thanks again for the responses - I have a feeling here of opening up a very large can of worms.

Alexl,

I have already gone through the exercise of comparing/contrasting AFD with sprinklers - I assume the AFD would need to be an L1/P1 system and the issue of unwanted fire signals I believe would be of concern. In truth I think Chris has summed up the situation in his post above - from limited experience with schools I strongly suspect both vandalism and malicious operation would ultimately degrade the effectiveness - but certainly good management could address most problems. I suspect geographic location, local culture and fire history would be the deciding factors in the absence of mandatory sprinkler protection.

Wee Brian,

Certainly any fire protection/prevention measure is only as good as the weakest link - a non functional sprinkler system is about as much use as non functional AFD - I'm not certain that the debate should hinge on examples of failure, but  the ongoing maintenance of systems is perhaps something that the education sector is traditionally poor at so a very valid part of risk assessment I think.

Chris,

My research has uncovered the considerable lobby for sprinklers from many parties as you say.

As to the trend for a shift in the incidence of arson to the school day and the increasing hours that schools are likley to be open there is no doubt in my mind that sprinklers are an attractive solution. Whilst no deaths have occured in the last 50? years my research does seem to suggest a growing sense of unease that a child will be killed or injured in the forseeable future.

I have tried to avoid drawing comparisons with other countries primarily as you point out it is typically a UK problem - possibly even a regional problem - scotland and wales do not seem to suffer as much as other UK regions.



Interesting that you are aware of an example of a major fire in a new(ish) school - part of the question I'm trying to answer revolves around BB 100 being focused on property protection (as well as refering to life protection issues via AD-B but that is a different thread) - the initial conclusion being that Building Regs have failed to secure property protection - I was trying to challenge that because whilst the stats show some 1300 school fires a year occur most are in older buildings - however with new schools comprising only a small % of total schools - statistically they will be targeted less by arson - possibley a circular argument that is going nowhere but may help in eliminating the issue from the dissertation.

My provisional view at the moment is that school design teams will seek to transfer thier risk associated with the responsibility for undertaking a risk assessment, fail to employ a fire engineer and take the easy options of blanket AFD or Sprinklers - the descision possibly being forced by the PFI vehicles particular financial arrangement.

Again, thanks for your input

Regards

Owen

Chris Houston

  • Guest
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2006, 11:42:35 AM »
I would add that it is sad to hear that brief for architects and fire engineers to make a solution that complies with the minimum and cheapest levels of detection required by the law.

Because the law is written mostly to provide the minimum levels of life safety, property protection is not really provided by legislation.  People who build schools are not the same people who have to operate schools.  Even then, people who operate them are not experts in property protection.

I worry when I see large open plan schools with full height, full length atria, no sprinklers, with a 30/60/90 minutes protected frame so everyone can get out, but are likely to be written off should a large fire occur.

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2006, 05:14:14 PM »
When studing school fires one aspect that should be considered, because of the large number of arson attacks, is security (palisade fencing, security lighting, etc). It would be interesting to know the level of security is those schools that are subjected to arson attacks.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
School Fires - High Loss Examples
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2006, 07:56:29 PM »
it may surprise you to know tom that most arson attacks take place when the school is occupied by the inmates themselves !


can anyone confirm if this true and point us in the right direction for the facts?


dave bev