Halifax Fire capability for tall buildings

[OldDartmouthMark]

In reading about the devastating fire that has happened at Grenfell Tower in London, I wondered how well Halifax buildings would be covered in a similar scenario.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/london-...fire-1.4159649

As skyscraper forumers continually promote taller and taller buildings, are we asking for situations whereby Halifax Fire would not have the capability to rescue people and effectively fight a fire in the event of the worst happening, as it has in London?

I realize that this is an unusual circumstance, and I'm sure that we will learn more as the investigation unfolds, but the idea of being trapped in a burning building 20+ stories up is horrifying.

I also recall hearing that during the 9-11 attacks that rescue on the upper floors of the World Trade Center was impossible since no ladder would be tall enough to reach and would be limited by the intensity of the fire even if it could. Rescue by helicopter was also not possible due to the strong air currents and heat resulting from the fire below.

Don't mean to sound too negative, but situations like these are a possibility and it makes me wonder how much consideration is given over and above adhering to building codes to the possibility of dealing with a major fire in one of these towers.

[IanWatson]

That Grenfell thing is pretty terrible.

Most old commercial main streets you see are the height they are because that was the limits of ladder trucks.

Today, towers are, in theory, designed and built with the understanding that even the tallest ladder trucks will only reach the 8th floor or so. "Ladders" are built in... they're the fire-rated emergency stairs. Plus they're sprinklered and built of "non-combustable" materials, such as concrete or mass timber.

That being said, it still doesn't solve everything, like a jet plane flying into your building. It will be interesting to see what they determine happened in the Grenfell situation. The building was refurbed in 2016. Early reports are saying the fire alarms didn't go off. Maybe the sprinklers didn't go off either?

[Phalanx]

A lot of these problems are related to construction.

It's very early in the Grenfell case yet, but the building apparently had a number of safety issues. Residents said there was no alarm, and that there's only one point of entrance/exit. I'm also not sure how the fire would have spread so quickly and so out of control if the fire suppression system was sufficient. Finally, the fire seems to have spread rapidly on the exterior of the building, which was recently reclad with some type of synthetic material (residents said 'plastic', but doubt that's all it was), so we could be looking at an issue with building materials, too. All lessons to be learned from.

9/11 is, and hopefully always will be, an exceptional case. If memory serves, there was a lot of corner cutting (to save on weight) done with the twin towers that wasn't done with later buildings (improved construction techniques, regulations etc). Things like using cinder block construction, or even simple drywall where poured and sometimes reinforced concrete would be used in modern buildings, for example, made it much easier for the damage to spread. Access to the stairs was physically cut off by the impact, so this isn't something you'd see in a 'normal' fire situation.

Not saying that everything can be made perfectly safe, but much of the risk can be mitigated by proper regulations and construction. It's not as though these buildings are designed and built without taking any of this into consideration.

In the end, if you don't think you can make it down the stairs in an emergency, then you're probably living/working somewhere too tall for you.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

A lot of these problems are related to construction.

It's very early in the Grenfell case yet, but the building apparently had a number of safety issues. Residents said there was no alarm, and that there's only one point of entrance/exit. I'm also not sure how the fire would have spread so quickly and so out of control if the fire suppression system was sufficient. Finally, the fire seems to have spread rapidly on the exterior of the building, which was recently reclad with some type of synthetic material (residents said 'plastic', but doubt that's all it was), so we could be looking at an issue with building materials, too. All lessons to be learned from.

9/11 is, and hopefully always will be, an exceptional case. If memory serves, there was a lot of corner cutting (to save on weight) done with the twin towers that wasn't done with later buildings (improved construction techniques, regulations etc). Things like using cinder block construction, or even simple drywall where poured and sometimes reinforced concrete would be used in modern buildings, for example, made it much easier for the damage to spread. Access to the stairs was physically cut off by the impact, so this isn't something you'd see in a 'normal' fire situation.

Not saying that everything can be made perfectly safe, but much of the risk can be mitigated by proper regulations and construction. It's not as though these buildings are designed and built without taking any of this into consideration.

In the end, if you don't think you can make it down the stairs in an emergency, then you're probably living/working somewhere too tall for you.

All good points, but in the case of your last sentence, a fire on a lower floor and the resultant smoke can create a situation that nobody can make it through - thus leading to a conclusion that nobody should live/work on floors higher than 8 storeys?

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

All good points, but in the case of your last sentence, a fire on a lower floor and the resultant smoke can create a situation that nobody can make it through - thus leading to a conclusion that nobody should live/work on floors higher than 8 storeys?

That's still a materials/construction/code issue. Access points to stairs are supposed to be within a certain radius, emergency lighting is supposed to be provided for low visibility situations, stairs should be built to code to keep them as smoke free as possible (heavy fire doors in place, well ventilated etc). There's also a matter of personal responsibility in knowing exactly where the fire exits are.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

A lot of these problems are related to construction.

It's very early in the Grenfell case yet, but the building apparently had a number of safety issues. Residents said there was no alarm, and that there's only one point of entrance/exit. I'm also not sure how the fire would have spread so quickly and so out of control if the fire suppression system was sufficient. Finally, the fire seems to have spread rapidly on the exterior of the building, which was recently reclad with some type of synthetic material (residents said 'plastic', but doubt that's all it was), so we could be looking at an issue with building materials, too. All lessons to be learned from.

9/11 is, and hopefully always will be, an exceptional case. If memory serves, there was a lot of corner cutting (to save on weight) done with the twin towers that wasn't done with later buildings (improved construction techniques, regulations etc). Things like using cinder block construction, or even simple drywall where poured and sometimes reinforced concrete would be used in modern buildings, for example, made it much easier for the damage to spread. Access to the stairs was physically cut off by the impact, so this isn't something you'd see in a 'normal' fire situation.

Not saying that everything can be made perfectly safe, but much of the risk can be mitigated by proper regulations and construction. It's not as though these buildings are designed and built without taking any of this into consideration.

In the end, if you don't think you can make it down the stairs in an emergency, then you're probably living/working somewhere too tall for you.

I wonder if aluminum composite panels were used for the reclad, which is plastic sandwiched between sheets of thin aluminum. Some composite panels contain fire retardant plastic but I am not sure how strictly regulated aluminum composite panel is.

[Drybrain]

It seems incredible that even with a combustible cladding, that a concrete tower could light up like that.

The only similar thing in Canada I can recall was a tower fire in a Toronto housing project seven years ago, which looked pretty scary, but it didn't spread beyond one apartment.

[Keith P.]

It was a govt public housing building, so no doubt low-bid tenders, shoddy workmanship, lack of oversight of the changes, and poor maintenance were all at play. Govt tends not to look at its own projects with the same beady eye that their building inspectors use with private developments.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It seems incredible that even with a combustible cladding, that a concrete tower could light up like that.

The only similar thing in Canada I can recall was a tower fire in a Toronto housing project seven years ago, which looked pretty scary, but it didn't spread beyond one apartment.

the tower didn't light - the flammable cladding, and building contents did.
modern concrete high-rise structures generally wont burn - but the stuff in them does. the heat can break windows, which can cause the fire to spread between floors, as can utility runs between floors if they arnt sealed properly.

sprinklers will generally keep the fire contained. - highrise fires in the last 30 years that got out of hand were all in unsprinklered buildings.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I wonder if aluminum composite panels were used for the reclad, which is plastic sandwiched between sheets of thin aluminum. Some composite panels contain fire retardant plastic but I am not sure how strictly regulated aluminum composite panel is.

these apparently were metal panels with 30cm of insulating foam behind them, and a continuous airgap.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Coincidentally, this article showed up in the Herald:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...e-deputy-chief

I was surprised that sprinkler systems have only been mandatory on new buildings since 1995. However I do know that many older ones do have sprinklers despite not being mandatory when built.