The term ‘passive' fire protection might suggest something inactive or even optional. Not at all, says Wilf Butcher who argues that our attitude to such safety should be hard-wired.

The dictionary defines the word ‘passive' as something submissive, inactive, lethargic and several other somewhat derogatory terms that one would not wish to associate with protecting a building against the hazards of fire. It goes on to define the term ‘passive resistance' as deliberate refusal, which is perhaps nearer the mark, as in a deliberate refusal to allow the passage of smoke and fire.

The fact still remains if you ask people in the street to explain the term ‘passive fire protection' in all probability they will not be able to give you a confident answer. But does this matter? The fire protection solution for any building, no matter what its design or intended use, has always been holistic in nature. While the combination of systems used will vary, all will play an essential role in securing the stability and integrity of a building in the event of a fire.

The protection of a building and its occupants from the effects of smoke and fire is wide ranging. It starts with the conceptual design of the building, moves on to appropriate defence mechanisms i.e. fire and smoke detection and alarm, fire extinguishing systems to quash the fire, structural fire protection, reaction to fire systems and compartmentation to contain the spread of fire. Add to this emergency lighting, signage, a well planned and rehearsed evacuation procedure, as well as the fire and rescue services to extinguish the fire, and it is easy to appreciate that the whole procedure is a complex and interdependent process.

It must also be remembered that the level of success in the control and containment of a fire goes way beyond whether a building is still standing after a fire. Frankly, the fact that a building may not have collapsed is meaningless to a business, if the aftermath of the fire results in there being no business left, as either the cost of reinstating the building or the timescale to enable this to happen is not viable. It should be further realised that building regulations are only concerned with life safety, both of the occupant and the firefighter. They are not concerned with protecting the viability of the building or its effects on the local economy or environment.

Hidden benefits

More often than not, built-in fire protection, as its name would imply, is either hidden from view (for example above a suspended ceiling) or simply appears to be part of the fabric of the building. If one asks a lay person to describe the purpose of a fire extinguisher, fire alarm or sprinkler system, there is a reasonable chance that person could do so. In the case of fire stopping or containment, this is less likely to be the case. After all, from most people's perspective, a hole in the wall is just a maintenance issue and not a potential smoke or fire hazard!

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why, when a building fire is reported in the media, it is very common to hear statements along the lines of: ‘The fire spread quickly through the building' or ‘The fire spread quickly into the roof structure'. Next time you hear or read such statements, ask yourself whether the compartmentation measures were inadequate, or non-existent?

But is it just the lay person that doesn't appreciate the importance of built-in fire protection? What level of understanding does today's designer, builder or enforcer have? As in nature, the inter-relationship between fire protection systems has evolved over time. Every now and then, however, an attempt is made to undermine the status quo, with claims that one element of the process can be traded off against another, usually on the grounds of cost-benefit.

Over recent months a number of articles would lead the reader to believe that built-in passive fire protection systems are an unnecessary cost that can be ‘factored out' of a building's design by ‘revolutionary new' ideas in computer modelling. The concern here is not about computer modelling itself – on the contrary, such an approach is now well established and there are many examples where it has been able to demonstrate its viability. The danger comes in the potential misinterpretation of such statements when presented outside the fire industry and press.

This approach suggests that with the right kind of computer modelling, it may be possible to engineer out the types of thermal movement created by the high temperatures, which may lead to the collapse of a building. For a number of building designs, particularly those of a more iconic nature, such a carefully considered fire engineered approach has a basis in foundation. For the vast majority of more traditional building types, however, this may not be the case.

According to recent data, there were some 32,900 fires recorded in buildings other than dwellings in the year 2006. Of these, some 83% were effectively contained within the room of origin. However, one only has to consider some of the more recent fires, such as those in the blocks of flats at Hounslow and Southall or the pier at Weston-super-Mare, to realise that this is not always the case.

Cost-cutting

In the drive to minimise construction costs, there is a temptation to minimise essential fire protection measures, and this is of major concern. It may be argued that, in spite of the number of fires quoted above, the statistical likelihood of a fire remains low. But it must be appreciated that the true worth of any fire protection system can only be measured if there is a real fire. If such measures fall short in practice, there is no way of rectifying the matter.

To put this in context, it is understood over 80% of businesses that suffer a major fire go out of business within 12-18 months, contributing to an annual cost of fire in the UK of over £7 billion. Built-in passive fire protection may be an enigma to some, seen as an unnecessary requirement by a few, or simply assumed to be there by the many! But if you are responsible for the design, construction, or ownership of a building, you need to be aware of and ensure that built-in fire protection measures are fit for purpose and installed and maintained by third party certificated professionals.

If you are a firefighter, you need to be assured that such measures are in place in order to protect you during a fire, and to minimise its spread until you gain control. If you find this not to be the case then it is important that you publicly express this view, in just the same way that you might argue the case for other fire protection systems, such as the inclusion of sprinkler systems.

‘Passive' fire protection is anything but submissive, inactive or lethargic! In fact it is an essential element of the fire protection measures that form the fabric of any building, acting as the all-important backbone to a building's overall fire protection strategy.