5 ms·

It seems to me that if the high-rise building truly resists the spread of fire, then sheltering in place is probably the optimal solution. However I just can't

It seems to me that if the high-rise building truly resists the spread of fire, then sheltering in place is probably the optimal solution. However I just can't trust my own life to that. Furthermore one of the hazards used to justify this advice was the possibility that hallways or stairs are already filled with smoke. Well if that's the case, doesn't that perhaps call into question the premise that fires stay contained in these buildings? I found a local copy of the video, it was from the London Fire Brigade and links to the site knowtheplan.co.uk which is now defunct. I can't find the video still on the net, but it might be out there somewhere. Edit: found it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy4L8B7KI9k https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy4L8B7KI9k

ericbarrett 6y ago
Only familiar with US building codes but stairway shafts in taller buildings are supposed to be built from thicker concrete, with fire-rated doors, so theoretically they should remain usable for some time (minutes) even if the floors they pass are engulfed. For larger buildings there must be two or more stairway shafts in case one is compromised. All is negated if doors are propped open, locks defeated, structure altered, building is wrapped in solidified napalm cladding, etc. So I’m with you, I’d also GTFO.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Exactly. These buildings are specifically designed to be escapable, at least before the fire becomes horrendously bad, so I'll choose to take advantage of that as quick as I can.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Generally speaking, US fire-safety regulations tend to be more stringent than in other countries. In particular, there is generally a requirement for two independent exit routes whereas many European regulations may permit only one, and the US tends to require wider fire stairwells. Evacuation in US fire-safety stairwells is likely to be quicker and less likely to interfere with firemen access (who have to move in the opposite direction from evacuating residents) to afflicted floors.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Yet, US still allows to build single family houses, and even lowrise condos from wood...
    - iguy 6y ago
      There are new wooden buildings in Europe too. I wonder if these are built to stricter codes, I mean to withstand fires for longer? I agree the US focus seems to be on fast exit, multiple options (from buildings that seem to be made of matchsticks).
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      Much lower potential loss of life, much shorter path to exit the building.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        And windows low enough to jump from and (probably) not die.
    - guerby 6y ago
      There's many different way to build with wood, some wood buildings will likely be safer than steel and concrete https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63HHsbFtDBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63HHsbFtDBo "Fire Safety and Protection: Why Wood Construction Comes Out on Top"
- toast0 6y ago
  > Only familiar with US building codes but stairway shafts in taller buildings are supposed to be built from thicker concrete, with fire-rated doors, so theoretically they should remain usable for some time (minutes) even if the floors they pass are engulfed. It should be more than minutes. I'm not at all familiar with residential codes, but have passing awareness of office codes in buildings with a few floors, and those (generally) require a two-hour rating for the materials of a stairwell. Of course, as you mention, if the doors are propped open, locked or blocked shut, or the walls are improperly built or modified, or covered in napalm, the rating doesn't mean much. If a high rise building collapses, you're pretty much SOL too, although a smaller building would likely have the stairwells stay up. Shelter in place makes sense if the unit is properly fire resistant for long enough for the fire to be controlled or if the exits are unsafe. However, if you're going to exit, you probably want to exit sooner than later. It's one of those things that you can't know the right answer without more information than you probably have. If people panic on the exits, that's a recipie for disaster as well.
labawi 6y ago
A contributing hazard may be ubiquitous use of PVC and similar materials that produce toxic fumes. You do not want to breathe that even if it doesn't suffocate you immediately. Smoke from wood and most "natural" materials - you'll usually be fine after a few days, if you manage not to suffocate.
baybal2 6y ago
> Furthermore one of the hazards used to justify this advice was the possibility that hallways or stairs are already filled with smoke. A highrise building must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs, all with emergency lighting, and some firefighting equipment. Internal stairwells must have battery backed smoke evacuation systems. Buildings must have an untouchable reserve of water connected to its firefighting hoses, and sprinklers. Regularly tested sprinklers, and CO detectors should be mandatory. The amount of furniture people have in a highrise must be regulated. Natural gas, or PG supply must by either extremely tightly regulated, or banned all together. Residents of highrise building must have annual evacuation drills, and fire inspections. Apartment owners must be mandated to have at least a regularly inspected flame extinguisher, and an escape hood/respirator/air pack.
- iguy 6y ago
  Where are these regulations from? As in, which country? > must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs The tower in question did not: https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan So it was designed around a stay-where-you-are fire plan, not an immediate evacuation. And this may have been entirely sensible for the design as built -- concrete floors, concrete walls, and I presume serious doors onto the stairs. Then a fire would not spread. But when you alter this design, then it doesn't work anymore. You can break any design with sufficient modifications; someone has to enforce that you don't.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    As as said above, even much better fireproofed buildings may collapse quicky if the circumstances are bad enough. Fireproofing alone is not a solution. I think I have not seem a single highrise in my life without 2 staircases, or emergency staircase anywhere, even in very old buildings.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      I take it you live in the US, since you're generally describing US fire code regulations, which are not the same as regulations in other countries, and are generally geared far more towards evacuate-first than compartmentalization.

ericbarrett 6y ago

Only familiar with US building codes but stairway shafts in taller buildings are supposed to be built from thicker concrete, with fire-rated doors, so theoretically they should remain usable for some time (minutes) even if the floors they pass are engulfed. For larger buildings there must be two or more stairway shafts in case one is compromised. All is negated if doors are propped open, locks defeated, structure altered, building is wrapped in solidified napalm cladding, etc. So I’m with you, I’d also GTFO.

bigbubba 6y ago
Exactly. These buildings are specifically designed to be escapable, at least before the fire becomes horrendously bad, so I'll choose to take advantage of that as quick as I can.
jcranmer 6y ago
Generally speaking, US fire-safety regulations tend to be more stringent than in other countries. In particular, there is generally a requirement for two independent exit routes whereas many European regulations may permit only one, and the US tends to require wider fire stairwells. Evacuation in US fire-safety stairwells is likely to be quicker and less likely to interfere with firemen access (who have to move in the opposite direction from evacuating residents) to afflicted floors.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Yet, US still allows to build single family houses, and even lowrise condos from wood...
  - iguy 6y ago
    There are new wooden buildings in Europe too. I wonder if these are built to stricter codes, I mean to withstand fires for longer? I agree the US focus seems to be on fast exit, multiple options (from buildings that seem to be made of matchsticks).
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Much lower potential loss of life, much shorter path to exit the building.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      And windows low enough to jump from and (probably) not die.
  - guerby 6y ago
    There's many different way to build with wood, some wood buildings will likely be safer than steel and concrete https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63HHsbFtDBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63HHsbFtDBo "Fire Safety and Protection: Why Wood Construction Comes Out on Top"
toast0 6y ago
> Only familiar with US building codes but stairway shafts in taller buildings are supposed to be built from thicker concrete, with fire-rated doors, so theoretically they should remain usable for some time (minutes) even if the floors they pass are engulfed. It should be more than minutes. I'm not at all familiar with residential codes, but have passing awareness of office codes in buildings with a few floors, and those (generally) require a two-hour rating for the materials of a stairwell. Of course, as you mention, if the doors are propped open, locked or blocked shut, or the walls are improperly built or modified, or covered in napalm, the rating doesn't mean much. If a high rise building collapses, you're pretty much SOL too, although a smaller building would likely have the stairwells stay up. Shelter in place makes sense if the unit is properly fire resistant for long enough for the fire to be controlled or if the exits are unsafe. However, if you're going to exit, you probably want to exit sooner than later. It's one of those things that you can't know the right answer without more information than you probably have. If people panic on the exits, that's a recipie for disaster as well.

labawi 6y ago

A contributing hazard may be ubiquitous use of PVC and similar materials that produce toxic fumes. You do not want to breathe that even if it doesn't suffocate you immediately. Smoke from wood and most "natural" materials - you'll usually be fine after a few days, if you manage not to suffocate.

baybal2 6y ago

> Furthermore one of the hazards used to justify this advice was the possibility that hallways or stairs are already filled with smoke. A highrise building must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs, all with emergency lighting, and some firefighting equipment. Internal stairwells must have battery backed smoke evacuation systems. Buildings must have an untouchable reserve of water connected to its firefighting hoses, and sprinklers. Regularly tested sprinklers, and CO detectors should be mandatory. The amount of furniture people have in a highrise must be regulated. Natural gas, or PG supply must by either extremely tightly regulated, or banned all together. Residents of highrise building must have annual evacuation drills, and fire inspections. Apartment owners must be mandated to have at least a regularly inspected flame extinguisher, and an escape hood/respirator/air pack.

iguy 6y ago
Where are these regulations from? As in, which country? > must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs The tower in question did not: https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan So it was designed around a stay-where-you-are fire plan, not an immediate evacuation. And this may have been entirely sensible for the design as built -- concrete floors, concrete walls, and I presume serious doors onto the stairs. Then a fire would not spread. But when you alter this design, then it doesn't work anymore. You can break any design with sufficient modifications; someone has to enforce that you don't.
- baybal2 6y ago
  As as said above, even much better fireproofed buildings may collapse quicky if the circumstances are bad enough. Fireproofing alone is not a solution. I think I have not seem a single highrise in my life without 2 staircases, or emergency staircase anywhere, even in very old buildings.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    I take it you live in the US, since you're generally describing US fire code regulations, which are not the same as regulations in other countries, and are generally geared far more towards evacuate-first than compartmentalization.