DO WE HAVE TO TEAR IT OFF? Dr. Jonathan Barnett, FIEAust CPEng NER FSFPE PE Technical Director RED Fire Engineers
WHAT CAN GO WRONG
3.1 m x 3.1 m 3 m x 3 m Continuous to top of building 4.8 m x 4.8 m
THE FIRE
COST IMPACT FIRE
LOCATION EAST DOCKLANDS
LOCATION EAST DOCKLANDS
LACROSSE DOCKLANDS 673-675 La Trobe Street, Melbourne 25 Nov 2015 400-500 Occupants 23 storeys $15,000,000 122 fire fighters involved
COST $6.5M (fire damage) 26 sprinkler heads operated, which along with water from hose streams resulted in $700,000 damage $8.6M (cladding) Replace non-fire damaged cladding $1M lost rent and cost of emergency accommodation Insurance premium increase of $130,000 since 2014
FACADE Case 1: Cladding is [part of] the exterior wall Case 2: Cladding is an attachment
WHAT IS AN ATTACHMENT? An adjunct or supplementary device
CASE 1: CLADDING IS PART OF THE EXTERNAL WALL If you remove the cladding, do you still have a complete wall? Does it look like a wall? Does it have the characteristics of an external wall? Keeps the weather out Protects the building from a nearby fire
IS IT AN ATTACHMENT? Back of interior plasterboard Remnant of ACP
IS IT COMBUSTIBLE? It does not pass AS1530.1
CASE 1: CLADDING IS PART OF THE EXTERNAL WALL For DtS product must be non-combustible as deemed or as tested to AS1530.1:1994 (Spec C1.1-3.1 (a)) Failure: Any flaming Furnace T > 50 C Specimen T > 50 C 750 C
IS IT ALLOWED? Certificate of compliance such as a Codemark? No Performance Solution (Alternative Solution) by a fire engineer? Not at time of construction
MBS ACTION Emergency Order Fire-affected apartments were cordoned off with fire rated construction Essential safety measures were repaired and re-activated and tested for compliance The MFB was placed on heightened alert to allow for quicker response. The architectural-decorative panels which were unsecured were removed.
NEXT STEP The damaged apartments were repaired The cladding on that section of the building was replaced with Vitracore G2 Meets AS1530.1 through testing of component parts
MBS ACTION Building notice to remove and replace non-compliant external cladding. Notice to all 470 owners
RESPONSE Four entities representing the various Owners Corporations appealed the order to the Building Appeals Board.
THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD Independent statutory body est. under the 1993 building act or the Building Regulations 2006 (The board dates back to Federation) Hears Modifications, Appeals, Disputes
LACROSSE AND THE BAB The owners Appealed the MBS Building orders to remove the ACP not involved in the fire and to replace it with one compliant with the requirements of the BCA Combustibility Structural stability Weatherproofing LU Simon requested and became a party to the appeals
LU SIMON S ROLE LU Simon was the builder should not be held responsible for the fire and subsequent damage because the blaze was caused by careless disposal of a cigarette and spread as a result of materials stored on the balcony. Cladding like the Alucobest brand used on the Lacrosse tower had been used across Australia for at least 40 years (From The Age, 26 Dec 2016).
LU SIMON S APPROACH Initially proposed banning of use of balconies for storage and a management in use plan to control over crowding (From The Age, 23 Mar 2016). For the appeal proposed wall wetting sprinklers and balcony sprinklers
AS2118.2 Drencher system to provide protection to a building that is exposed to an external fire source Based on work in the 70s at the Experimental Building Station, Department of Housing and Construction, Australia for protection of glazing.
TYCO WS WINDOW SPRINKLER
USE ON CLADDING If the fire ignites the inside of the cladding where the fire will be shielded from an external water spray, the sprinkler s effectiveness is unknown. A small fire, starting down low, might be one example of such a fire A larger fire where the plume is blown away from the sprinkler head for a while, allowing ignition of the cladding is another such fire
EFFECTIVENESS Small fire might be worse than large fire Wind can allow ignition of cladding before sprinkler activation Fires from the inside will impact the cladding before external sprinkler activation
WHAT DID THE BAB FIND? There were no identified legal errors with the building orders, nor were the orders contrary to the building act The expert witnesses for all sides agreed that the ACT was combustible and did not meet the DtS requirements of the BCA
WHAT DID THE BAB FIND? LU Simon s alternative solution was supposed to address CP2 and CP4 CP2: to buildings, within buildings, to exits, to SOUs CP4: Resist fire and and maintain tenable conditions for escape LU Simon said the external sprinklers would comply with CP2 and CP4 and was at least equivalent to DtS
LARGE SCALE DEMONSTRATION BS8414 apparatus (Similar to AS5113) This large crib fire has a very small incipient stage, thus doesn t address the issue of a small fire igniting the cladding before sprinkler activation Lack of wind during the demonstration fire
LARGE SCALE DEMONSTRATION Didn t test fire from inside wall cavity to the outside Didn t test the ease of ignition of old or damaged ACP Lack of multiple tests, thus only a demonstration The heads used were not listed for such use anywhere in the world
LARGE SCALE DEMONSTRATION The MFB pointed out that during AS5113 development, sprinklers were discussed and rejected due to uncertainties
LACK OF COLLABORATION The BAB criticized LU Simon for not inviting all parties to witness the tests. From LU Simon s attorney: had that test not achieved the outcome that [it] achieved, it is likely that we would not have put forward the alternative solution of this matter before board
OVERALL ASSESSMENT Reliability of external sprinkler system is questionable as building s water supply has been downgraded from Grade 1 to Grade 2 Existing sprinkler system may not be as robust as no FRL between SOUs and between floors. (Lack of penetration seals) Lack of effective management in use plan (maintenance of sprinklers and ACP)
FINAL OUTCOME BAB refused to agree to the appeal.
Thank you JONATHAN BARNETT M: 0467 508 868 E: JONATHAN@REDFIREENGINEERS.COM.AU