Print Close

Fire engineered building solutions - A

design for life
Fire engineering methodology has allowed increasingly creative architecture. Sam Barrett looks at the concerns it holds
for insurers and the need for them to be involved earlier in the process.

Post | 27 Apr 2010 | 07:31

Love it or hate it, the Millennium Dome would not be around if it wasn't for fire engineering. This methodology — which
involves the application of scientific and engineering principles to achieve a building's fire safety, rather than following the
prescriptive rules laid down in part B of the building regulations — facilitates the construction of increasingly creative
architecture and structures.

Advertisement

Other building projects, including Stansted Airport, the Great Court at the British Museum and the Wimbledon All England
Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, have also utilised fire engineering to allow their innovative design. "From a design
perspective, the benefits of fire engineering are an ability to develop tailored safety solutions that embrace design
aspirations but also ensure the appropriate form of response in a serious fire situation," explains Professor Barbara Lane,
a director of Arup, the independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists, and
leader of its fire practice.

But, as this engineering practice has become more prevalent, it has thrown up a number of concerns for the insurance
industry as well as other stakeholders. These were brought together recently in research conducted by Peter Wilkinson,
associate director of the Fire Protection Association.

As part of his report — Has fire engineering lived up to expectations? — he interviewed a range of people including
academics, practitioners, designers, insurers and policy makers about the role of fire engineering. "Fire engineering is a
very valid and necessary tool when used responsibly," says Mr Wilkinson.

"The research was prompted because we'd seen some abuses of fire engineering practices and wondered how
widespread the problem was. Although these instances are rare, action needs to be taken to improve the way it integrates
with other areas, such as insurance. Otherwise the probable outcome is that more buildings will suffer greater material
damage and business interruption."

The research is welcomed by the insurance industry. Chris Hanks, general manager of Allianz Commercial, says that
developments have occurred under the radar in this area. "We've seen a number of changes in the way fire safety is
incorporated into buildings over the years and this means we don't really know what the outcome of a fire will be," he says.
"This, coupled with changes in building materials, has already resulted in more catastrophic fires and total losses."

Better understanding
A further complication is that, as well as needing to gain a better understanding of the risks inherent when the building is
completed, insurers have to understand how alterations to the property might affect the fire engineering that is in place.
"Buildings change hands and their use changes but the detail of the original design isn't passed on," says Frazer Argyros-
Farrell, senior risk consultant at Marsh Risk Consulting. "You almost need a manual that stays with the building explaining
the fire-engineered features and how they affect fire safety."

All these factors make it difficult to assess the risks inherent in these buildings. "We know how traditional buildings
perform in a fire but these buildings have only been around for a few years," explains Doug Barnett, head of customer risk
management at Axa Insurance. "We are seeing more total losses, especially in warehouses, which are more
commonplace in the UK now anyway, but we just don't know how a fire-engineered office building, for example, would
perform."

Another concern, from the insurers' point of view, is that although fire engineers look at the property protection and
business continuity angles, many feel the primary focus is on life safety. "Fire engineering principles are aimed at life
safety and — while saving lives should have a priority — we'd like to see a more pragmatic approach, with designers
giving property protection more consideration," says Graham Page, practice leader for the public sector at Zurich Risk
Engineering (UK). "We do pick up the bill if something goes wrong."

Standards within the fire engineering profession also came in for criticism during Mr Wilkinson's research. A lack of
experience through buildings' lifecycles was cited, as were gaps in qualifications and scepticism about the quality of
graduates from universities that are teaching fire engineering.

Bob Johnson, technical survey manager at Ecclesiastical Insurance, says he has witnessed such inconsistency in the fire
engineering profession. "Different training and experience means the solutions offered by different fire engineers vary
greatly, and occasionally it's possible to get a number of very different solutions for one building. This can make it difficult
to assess whether the proposed design solutions are based on the engineer's past experience or whether they're simply
theoretical and have no proven track record," he explains.

But it isn't just the fire engineering profession that is criticised. Insurers were also censured in the research, with a
common view among designers that their only message on managing fire risk in fire-engineered buildings is to 'put in
sprinklers'.

Insurers fought back, however, arguing that this is often the only option when they are asked for their input into the
property design. Mr Johnson explains: "It's not the case that we don't want to get involved in the fire engineering design
process but, more often than not, we're not invited to do so or are only invited to get involved at a very late stage —
merely to rubber-stamp the design decisions."

He, and other insurers, would like to be involved as early as possible in the process. As well as giving the insurer the
ability to influence the fire safety measures being taken, such early inclusion in the process would arguably have
advantages for the designer. Many insurers have their own fire engineers, for example, who could provide valuable insight
into the design process — especially from a property protection perspective — and help to ensure properties are
insurable.

Reducing costs
Earlier involvement could also help reduce cost. Mr Page explains: "If fire safety measures are included at this stage it's
cheaper. For example, using sprinklers in a school can help to push the design boundaries, allowing large atriums and
other interesting spaces. This is good from a design perspective but also reduces the spend on building materials. It can
even make this option almost cost neutral. If you build, then add sprinklers, the costs can be huge."

Yet the state of the insurance market doesn't help to foster more productive relationships between insurers and designers.
With rates having been soft for so long, there's always somewhere to obtain cover. "Insurers are often their own worst
enemy," says Mr Wilkinson. "There's always an insurer prepared to take on bad risk."

Certainly, the hardening of the market and a drop in capacity could force change. Mr Barnett comments: "Some of the fire-
engineered buildings are huge, housing as many as 6000 people. If rates hardened and capacity fell out of the market this
would drive designers to speak to us at an earlier stage."

In addition to the difficulties surrounding relationships between the insurers and the designers, other parties are adding to
the problem with the role of the enforcer coming in for criticism. Comments suggest that standards vary dramatically
across the UK and that there is a real need for enforcers to be trained as well as — if not better than — the engineers
themselves.

Principle applications
But, with budgets under pressure, there's no investment to provide training on fire engineering. "Building control bodies
have a lot on their plates and they need to check all aspects of a build," says Mr Wilkinson. "Quite often, especially with
the smaller local authorities, they don't have the experience to assess fire-engineered buildings accurately."

However, an over-riding theme from the interviews conducted for his research seemed to suggest fire engineering is 'just
accepted, not tested'. In fact, many predicted UK fire engineering failures will soon come to light where the application of
these principles has been incorrectly used, while others predicted a serious fire that "could set back the whole discipline".

Clearly, with the potential for loss of life and the ramifications of this for the insurance and design communities, there are
compelling reasons why these issues need to be addressed. Tackling it through regulation is unlikely to work. Imposing
strict rules and guidelines around how fire engineering can be applied is unattractive. As a performance based design
technique, rules shouldn't be restrictive or this could hamper the way it works alongside innovative design.

Instead, greater collaboration between all the stakeholders to fire engineering will help to lead to better understanding of
the techniques and their application within properties. To achieve this, the FPA is also looking at how it can bring some of
the parties together. "We're focusing on the interface with the insurer," says Mr Wilkinson. "If insurers want to ensure that
a fire-engineered building is resilient from property and business protection perspectives they need to be involved at an
early stage in the design process."

He believes this would require a culture change from both the insurer and the designer. Mr Page agrees but thinks
insurers could be more proactive. "Insurers have a significant responsibility to make people aware of the fire risks and how
fire engineering can reduce them. We have to let the designers understand our expectations. We need to know what's
happening," he says.

While bringing together the two parties may be a major step forward, the involvement of an independent third party, such
as the FPA, would be welcomed by many insurers. Andrew Jackson, portfolio manager for property and packages at Brit
Insurance, says: "Very few insurers would have a problem with their findings. We'd be more than comfortable for a
designer to use them if they didn't want to involve us directly."

Workable solution
Getting a workable solution is essential. Without one, the consequences aren't particularly palatable. "The consequences
are unknown but they look pretty serious," says Mr Hanks. "I expect there will be some bad losses and, although the fire
insurers will adjust and increase rates to reflect the risk, we possibly stand to lose money on the way."

Mr Jackson agrees. He likens the situation to that seen around eight years ago with combustible composite panelling.
"Insurers reacted by increasing rates and looking to co-insure after the industry saw a high level of losses. Then, after the
Association of British Insurers and FPA did a lot of work gauging the quality and fire resilience of these panels, insurers
were able to differentiate between good and bad panels," he explains.

With the prospect of fire-engineered building losses looming large, the insurance industry is keen to take preventative
steps. "In the past we've seen fire legislation introduced on the back of serious fires," says Mr Page. "It would be so much
better if we could pre-empt this by getting to grips with the issues now."

Insurer involvement in the design process

While the Fire Protection Association research and insurer feedback suggests insurance is an afterthought in the design
and build process, some are having more success at getting involved at an earlier stage.

This is particularly the case for Zurich Municipal with its focus on the public sector. Graham Page, practice leader for
Zurich Risk Engineering (UK), explains: "Our customers are aware that we like to get involved and do tend to tell us what
they're doing. We embrace the fire engineering principles and will guide them through what can be done as it is much
cheaper to incorporate at this stage."

An example of this is Zurich's involvement with the project, Building Schools for the Future. This project, which will see
£9.3bn of investment between 2008 and 2011, will mean some 3500 secondary schools will be rebuilt or remodelled.

With school fires costing £65m in 2008 and an average of 20 schools affected by fire loss each week, reducing the risk of
fire in these new buildings is important. "We've had significant input into this project, including putting together a guide
laying out our approach to new school design," explains Mr Page.

Further input takes the form of financial incentives, with Zurich offering discounts of up to 70% on the fire element of the
premium if schools are fitted to its specifications.
And, although there is some reluctance from the design community, there is also evidence that some designers are keen
for more insurer involvement. For instance, Arup director professor Barbara Lane says that it consults with insurers on the
majority of its projects. "We don't recommend proceeding beyond concept stage without their input. We see their
understanding and agreement to our engineered solutions, and the safety levels they are intended to achieve, as
fundamental to the value of the building our clients obtain at the end of the design and construction process," she adds.

Print Close
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29
Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers
04252091 & 04252093.