fire safety report radiation assessment 21 bellevue … · 2017-07-19 · acn 097 535 996 fire...

ACN 097 535 996

FIRE SAFETY REPORT

RADIATION ASSESSMENT

21 BELLEVUE AVE, GAYTHORNE

for

GAYTHORNE RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT C/- RIVER DRIVE GROUP

BRISBANE

210a Beaudesert Road Moorooka QLD, 4105

(P) 07 3392 7722 (F) 07 3892 2880

[email protected]

Project Ref: F14096 Revision: 03 Issued: 12 November 2015

SelindaStratford

Approved Stamp

Radiation Assessment – 21 Bellevue Ave Gaythorne

F14096 FER Rev04.docx 1

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

DOCUMENT DETAILS

Title: FIRE ENGINEERING REPORT Document No: F14096 FER 02 Original Date of Issue: 4th June 2015 This Date of Issue: 12th November 2015 CLIENT DETAILS

Client: River Drive Group Wayne Henry Contact: River Drive Group Wayne Henry Certifier: BSP Building Surveying Professionals Stuart Andrews AUTHOR / APPROVALS

Author Signature Checked Signature Stephen Burton MIEAust, CPEng, NPER, RPEQ 3633

Stephen Burton MIEAust, CPEng, NPER, RPEQ 3633

REVISION / ISSUE HISTORY

Document Name

Filename Revision Issued to Date

F14096 F14096-FER-01 01 Wayne Henry 04/06/2015 F14096 F14096-FER-02 02 Wayne Henry 31/08/2015 F14096 F14096-FER-03 03 Wayne Henry, Stuart

Andrews 30/09/2015

F14096 F14096-FER-04 04 Wayne Henry, Stuart Andrews

12/11/2015



TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4!SECTION 1.! INTRODUCTION 5!

1.1.! STAKEHOLDERS 5!1.2.! LIMITATIONS 6!

SECTION 2.! BUILDING DESCRIPTION 7!2.1.! DRAWINGS 9!

SECTION 3.! LEGISLATION REVIEW & BUILDING CODE NON-CONFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 10!

3.1.! LEGISLATION 10!3.2.! BUILDING CODE: MEETING THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 10!3.3.! ASSESSMENT TYPES 10!3.4.! BUILDING CODE: NON-CONFORMANCE CLAUSES 10!3.5.! BUILDING CODE: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 11!

SECTION 4.! LEVEL OF ANALYSIS 12!4.1.! ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION SUMMARY 12!4.2.! SUB- SYSTEM C (SS-C) “FIRE SPREAD AND IMPACT AND CONTROL” 12!

SECTION 5.! ENGINEERING VALUES, PARAMETERS & ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 13!5.1.! RADIANT HEAT FLUX – CRITERIA FOR QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 13!5.2.! RADIANT HEAT FLUX – BCA TABLE CV1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 14!5.3.! RADIATION TO THE OPENING FROM THE BOUNDARY 14!5.4.! RADIANT HEAT FLUX – VALUES OF SIGNIFICANCE: FIRE SPREAD BETWEEN BUILDINGS 15!5.5.! ATTENUATION OF RADIATION BY WINDOW GLASS 16!

SECTION 6.! DESIGN FIRE AND SCENARIOS 18!6.1.! FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT 18!6.2.! FIRE SCENARIO – TEMPERATURE INPUT VALUE 18!

SECTION 7.! ASSESSMENT CV1 - PROTECTION OF OPENINGS 19!7.1.! STUDY 1 CAR PARK OPENINGS 19!7.2.! STUDY 2 – RADIATION FROM THE OPENINGS TO THE BOUNDARY 21!7.3.! CONCLUSION 22!7.4.! STUDY 3 – RADIATION TO THE OPENING FROM THE BOUNDARY 22!7.5.! CONCLUSION 23!

SECTION 8.! ALTERNATIVE BUILDING SOLUTION RECOMMENDATION 24!8.1.! SUMMARY OF RESULTS 24!8.2.! CARPARK PROTECTION OF OPENINGS 24!8.3.! OPENING PROTECTION SCREENING SPECIFICATION 25!

SECTION 9.! MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 26!SECTION 10.! CERTIFICATION 27!SECTION 11.! REFERENCES 28!APPENDIX A -! PLANS 29!APPENDIX B -! RADIATION ASSESSMENTS 35!APPENDIX C -! RADIATION REPORTS OF SCREENS 39!



FIGURES

Fig 1.! Both Street Views ...................................................................................................... 4!Fig 2.! Level 1 – Floor Layout ............................................................................................... 7!Fig 3.! North Elevation – Grid 1 Multiple Windows of the same type ............................. 7!Fig 4.! Southern Elevation – Grid 3 Multiple Windows of The Same Type ...................... 8!Fig 5.! Level 1 – Wall and Window Setout 2.1m and 2.5m ............................................... 8!Fig 6.! Window Radiation Screens and Mesh ................................................................. 17!Fig 7.! Openings in Car Park ............................................................................................. 19!Fig 8.! Boundary Openings in Car Park – Elevation of Wall ........................................... 20!Fig 9.! Boundary Openings in Car Park ............................................................................ 24!Fig 10.! Methods of Screening Installation ...................................................................... 26!

TABLES

Table 1.! Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 5!Table 2.! Drawings referenced by this Report. ................................................................. 9!Table 3.! Non-Conformance Clauses .............................................................................. 10!Table 4.! CV1 Including actual distances ....................................................................... 14!Table 5.! Windows being Assessed ................................................................................... 21!Table 6.! Radiation to Boundary ....................................................................................... 22!

ABBREVIATIONS USED ABS Alternative Building Solution – Building Code defines as a variance to

prescriptive designs ASET Available Safe Egress Time – Used for tenability time evaluations BCA Building Code of Australia DTS Deemed to Satisfy provisions within the Building Code of Australia FEB Fire Engineering Design – Briefing Document of Fire Safety Options FER Fire Engineering Report FIP Fire Indicator Panel FRL Fire Resistance Level- Defines Structural / Integrity / Insulation resistance times IFEG International Fire Engineering Guidelines – Referenced by Australian Building

Codes Board N/A Not Applicable NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology QFES Queensland Fire and Emergency Service RSET Required Safe Egress Time – Used for egress evaluations



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ferm Engineering has been commissioned by Gaythorne Residential Investment c/- River Drive Group, to prepare a fire engineering report to assess wall openings in external walls with reduced boundary clearances. The proposed site is located at 21 Bellevue Ave Gaythorne and is a multi unit development. The purpose of our report is to assess the protection of openings to the boundary for the external walls, and satisfy the performance requirements of CP2 and CP8.

Fig 1. Both Street Views

Building Summary: Three Storey Building Class 2, 7a Type of Construction A Combined Lot 5 and 8, RP 56347 Bellevue Avenue Gaythorne Alternative solution Assessment: Protection of openings in a wall requiring FRL’s. CP2, CV1, CP8 Assessment type: Quantitative and Deterministic. BCA Assessment Method A0.9 (b),(d) Results in Summary The radiation assessment for radiant heat to the boundary, conducted in two parts in accordance with CV1, indicates that the window openings satisfy the criteria nominated for radiant heat flux per Table CV1(a)& (b), with the inclusion of Crimsafe or approved equal heat attenuation screens. Under the first part of assessment for radiant heat flux toward the boundary (per CV1(a)) the result of the assessment for the windows to the class 2 building meet the acceptance criteria for heat. The part two CV1(b) assessment requires designing to meet specific heat flux levels returned from the boundary. To satisfy the requirement for specific levels of heat flux nominated in the verification method of BCA, screening to all openings within 3m will be adopted. Acceptance criteria are based on an assessment of radiation performance against nominated and referenced accepted criteria of CV1, with applied design practices and standards for the Fire Engineering Guidelines.



FIRE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RADIATION ASSESSMENT

21 BELLEVUE AVE, GAYTHORNE

12th November 2015

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

Elements discussed in this report include:

- Building description and outline - Defining objectives and requirements of the Building Code - Acceptance criteria and engineering criteria - Radiation assessment - Assessment results and solution requirements

The purpose of this Fire Engineering Report (FER) is to review the various openings and assess their performance against the effect of radiation to meet fire spread performance characteristics. Comparison is made against referenced acceptance criteria to determine whether the construction is suitable as proposed or whether a suitable alternative solution must be considered in the design to meet those fire spread performance requirements of BCA.

1.1. Stakeholders

The processing of the assessment includes the following nominated stakeholders: Position Name Organisation Contact Fire Engineer Stephen Burton Ferm Engineering 0418 881 579 Building Certifier Stuart Andrews BSP Building Surveying

Professionals 07 3255 0377

Client Wayne Henry River Drive Group 07 5570 4546 Building Approval Officer

Murray Clarke QFES 07 36351500

Architect Von Sol Reshen Pillay

Elevation Architecture Studio

07 3251 6900

Table 1. Stakeholders



1.2. Limitations

The overall life safety will be assessed utilising quantitative tools and qualitative assessment (or a combination of both) where necessary to determine that the BCA performance requirements for life safety are equalled or exceeded in each instance.

This report assesses the fire safety and life safety performance requirements due to normal use, with accidental ignition from a single fire source. The buildings fire safety components performance under deliberate acts of criminal ignition (no longer considered “incredible scenarios”) should perform reasonably equivalent to DTS. The same applies where vandalism and intentional damage to a fire safety component has occurred. Multiple ignition sources are not considered in this assessment.

The final report would not provide guidance in respect to the building if used for purposes outside the classification, fire load, the legislation and relevant Australian Standards. Multiple, unintentional ignitions are not normal for this use and not considered by the report.

Our assessments will be based on the documentation made available at the time of preparing the report. Where further changes are made to the property, it is the owners’ responsibility to refer such changes to a suitably qualified Fire Engineer for review and verification of compliance. Environmental impact after fires and consequences of fire operations are beyond the scope of this report.

Ferm Engineering is not responsible for the operations, maintenance, training and testing of systems to achieve the performance requirements reported and installed. Particular maintenance requirements may be outlined as a part of the final report, but enforcement becomes an issue for management.

The information contained in this document is provided for the sole use of the client and no reliance should be placed on the information by any other person. In the event that the information is disclosed or furnished to any other person, then Ferm Engineering accepts no liability for any loss or damage incurred by the that person whatsoever as a result of using the information.

Confidential Use

This document is issued to the recipient on the basis that designs and information contained in it be regarded and treated by the client as confidential. The contents of this document is intended only for the sole use of the client and the project listed recipients and should not be disclosed or furnished to any other person. Copyright (Australia)

Under the Australian Federal Law, both intellectual property and copyright of this document and the content is protected under law, all rights reserved. No part of the content of this document may be reproduced, published, transmitted in any form or by any means without the express permission of Ferm Engineering, its Directors and Owners.



SECTION 2. BUILDING DESCRIPTION

The multi unit development is a 3 storey building with ground level car park, with 17 units.

Fig 2. Level 1 – Floor Layout

Construction is a mixture of concrete floors, rendered external panel, internal plasterboard fire rated walls and standard plasterboard walls under sheet metal roof. The final construction has been designed to comply with the requirements for Type A construction.

Characteristics assessable under BCA:

Rise in storeys 3 Class 2, 7a Type A Construction

This review will assess openings to external walls, which are from 2.1 to 2.5m from the common side boundaries.

Elevations and plans are provided within Section 7 & Appendix 1 for further information. The plans below indicate the various openings in bounding construction that are under review.

Fig 3. North Elevation – Grid 1 Multiple Windows of the same type

WS-01 WS-02 WS-03 3 Carpark Vent Screens



Fig 4. Southern Elevation – Grid 3 Multiple Windows of The Same Type

Fig 5. Level 1 – Wall and Window Setout 2.1m and 2.5m

WS-04 WS-01 WS-03

2.5m

2.5m



2.1. Drawings

A list of drawings referenced in the compilation of this report is shown in the table below.

Drawing Number Originator Title Rev DA-02.03 Elevation Architecture Site Plan F DA-03.01 Elevation Architecture Ground & First Floor F DA-03.02 Elevation Architecture Second & Third Floor E WD-04.01 Elevation Architecture Carpark Level Floor Plan 5 WD-04.02 Elevation Architecture First Floor Plan 4 WD-04.03 Elevation Architecture Second Floor Plan 4 WD-04.04 Elevation Architecture Third Floor Plan 4 WD-04.05 Elevation Architecture Roof Plan 1 WD-05.01 Elevation Architecture Dimensional Carpark Plan 1 WD-05.02 Elevation Architecture Dimensional First Floor Plan 1 WD-05.03 Elevation Architecture Dimensional Second Floor

Plan 1

WD-05.04 Elevation Architecture Dimensional Third Floor Plan

1

WD-09.01 Elevation Architecture Elevations Sheet 1 of 2 2 WD-09.02 Elevation Architecture Elevations Sheet 2 of 2 2 WD-10.01 Elevation Architecture Sections Sheet 1 of 2 3 WD-10.02 Elevation Architecture Sections Sheet 2 of 2 3

Table 2. Drawings referenced by this Report.



SECTION 3. LEGISLATION REVIEW & BUILDING CODE NON-CONFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

3.1. Legislation

The relevant statutory legislation governing the development application includes:

- Qld Building Act 1975 - Building Regulation - Sustainable Planning Act - Building Code of Australia 2015

3.2. Building Code: Meeting the Performance Requirements

The Building Code of Australia outlines a number of ways in which compliance with the performance requirements can be achieved (A0.5).

The fire safety strategy for the Main Street development is consistent with the provisions of A0.5 (b) & (d) where the alternative solution has been formulated against the CV1 methods provided by BCA.

The assessment methods as nominated in section A0.9 includes the use of part (b)&(d) to formulate solutions that satisfy the performance requirements nominated as per A0.10 with use of the BCA provided verification methods. We have adopted this method here.

3.3. Assessment Types

Quantitative by means of A0.9 (b)(d) BCA Assessment Method A0.9 (b)(d) CV1

3.4. Building Code: Non-conformance Clauses

The following non-conformances are assessed as part of the alternative solution for this development.

BCA Clause Description Performance Requirement

C3.2

The protection of openings in external walls.

Openings within 3m of the

boundary. Assess to meet CV1 acceptance method as per A0.9

CP2, CP8

Table 3. Non-Conformance Clauses



The following clauses are provided in the BCA and represents the non-conforming element within the design.

C3.2 Protection of Openings in External Walls

Openings in an external wall required to have an FRL must-

(b) If situated less from a fire source feature to which it is exposed than- (i) 3m from a side or rear boundary of the allotment,

Be protected in accordance with C3.4.

3.5. Building Code: Performance Requirements

CP2

a) A building must have elements, which will, to the degree necessary, avoid the spread of fire-

i) to exits; and

ii) to sole-occupancy units and public corridors; and

iii) between buildings; and

iv) in a building.

b) Avoidance of the spread of fire referred to in (a) must be appropriate to-

i) the function or use of the building; and

ii) the fire load; and

iii) the potential fire intensity; and

iv) the fire hazard; and

v) the number of storeys in the building; and

vi) its proximity to other property; and

vii) any active fire safety systems installed in the building; and

viii) the size of any fire compartment; and fire brigade intervention, and other elements they support, and the evacuation time.

CP8 Any building element provided to resist the spread of fire must be protected, to the degree necessary, so that an adequate level of performance is maintained-

a) where openings, construction joints and the like occur; and

b) where penetrations occur for building services.

BCA also defines the level of fire rating to be achieved by building elements dependant on the Class of building and Type of construction required. In this instance as outlined in Section 3 above the building is to achieve Type A construction.



SECTION 4. LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

The alternative solutions will be reviewed quantitatively to determine that the BCA performance requirements for fire spread between buildings are satisfied. Where the NCC verification methods are referenced, so is the guidance provided by the Guide to BCA, for that part of the assessment.

4.1. Alternative Solution Summary

The review of the primary performance requirements include:

1. NCC C3.2 - The protection of openings in external walls. Protection of openings in a wall requiring FRL’s. CP2, CP8 - Verification method CV1,

A0.9 Assessment Methods

The following assessment methods or combination of are used to determine that the proposed building solutions comply with the performance requirements:

a) Evidence to support that the use of a material, form of construction or design meets a Performance Requirement or a Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision.

b) Verification Methods such as –

i) the Verification Methods in the NCC; ii) such other verification methods as the appropriate authority

accepts for determining compliance with the performance requirements.

c) Comparison with the DtS provisions. d) Expert Judgment.

ABS Item - Protection of Openings Assessment: CP2, CP8 –

Assessment type: Quantitative and Deterministic to CV1 BCA Assessment Method A0.9 (b),(d)

4.2. Sub- System C (SS-C) “Fire spread and impact and control”

Sub-system C (SS-C) examines the fire spread beyond the fire enclosure and the impact this can have on the structure and how this might be controlled. Side boundaries are less than 3m, will be assessed. The method of construction and performance of the internal load bearing firewall will also be assessed.

Sub-system DTS ABS SS-C Fire spread and impact and control. Item ABS 1

Openings in external walls greater than 3m from boundary.

Protection for openings as less than 3m from boundary. This is assessed under CP2. Protection for openings as less than 6m between buildings on same allotment Under CP2.

All other sub-systems as per the IFEG are predominantly unaffected as they have been developed and approached under a DtS method of application.



SECTION 5. ENGINEERING VALUES, PARAMETERS & ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The assessment criteria nominated within the report provides a method of verification as to what is deemed an acceptable level of radiant heat both generated from and received at the opening. Radiant Heat Flux – Criteria for Quantitative Analysis

5.1. Radiant Heat Flux – Criteria for Quantitative Analysis

Drysdale (Drysdale 2000) determines as the body is heated and the temperature rises it will lose heat partly by radiation and partly by convection. Convection predominates at low temperatures (<150-200oC) but above 400oC radiation becomes increasingly dominant.

Note that the low temperature convection losses are ignored in the estimates and radiation is reviewed only. In terms of total radiant heat flux estimated at the receiving surface this is considered conservative.

The following formula is used to give the estimated radiant heat flux:

!"!" = !"#!! Where: != the emitted energy (W/m2)

!= the emissivity of the body 0.9 Structural design for fire safety [12], Nominates from 0.7 - 1 != the Stefan-Boltmann constant (5.67 x 10-8 W/m2.K4 ) != the temperature (K) != configuration factor Resulting values estimate a radiant heat flux value from the emitting surface to the receiver.

Only a fraction of the radiation emitted reaches the receiving surface, the balance passing into the surroundings. The configuration factor Φ is determined as follows:

Where:

x = Height of window/2 H & W are input to match window sizes y = Width of window/2 Whilst the above method of estimating configuration factors and resulting radiant heat are given in numerous publications, the Fire Engineering Guide Lines (FEDG) and Structural Design for Fire Safety (Buchanan 2002) provide worked examples for similar scenarios to this assessment.

The method of assessment utilised by Buchanan is used in this report. This method of evaluating radiant heat flux will be duplicated in a spread sheet with input values as nominated by section 7.1.2 of this report and relevant opening sizes. The spread sheet estimates will be provided within the report.



Buchanan uses a 600oC flame temperature in his FEDG publication and 800oC in his Structural Design for Fire Safety publication in worked examples for determining fire spread between two buildings ‘X’ distance apart, through an opening in the external wall.

5.2. Radiant Heat Flux – BCA Table CV1 Acceptance Criteria

The verification method of CV1 is referenced in this assessment; the BCA provides the following as table CV1. On the elevations, we have screens with windows WS-01, WS02, WS-03, WS-04, at 2.1m and 2.5m for assessment. These are indicated in the table below.

Location Heat Flux (kW/m2) 0m 80

1.0m 40 2.1m �27 2.5m �24�3m 20 6m 10

Table 4. CV1 Including actual distances

5.3. Radiation to the Opening from the Boundary

We assess a condition of imaginary fire at the boundary. CV1(b) states: when located at the distance from the allotment boundary as listed in Table CV1, a building is capable of withstanding the heat flux set out in column 2 without ignition.

The distances interpolated for the kW/m2 design requirements from the CV1 table for this assessment are:

CV1 (interpolation)

! @ 2.1m = 27kW/m2 ! @ 2.5m = 24kW/m2

Designing to satisfy these values is required to comply with the CV1 assessment method. No external fire scenarios are developed under this method of review.



There are a number of references available that cite numerous acceptable minimum and maximum levels of heat flux limits for common materials. Two were given in section 6 which included those examples given in Guide to BCA in the explanatory notes. If the heat flux presents as less than ignition in the absence of spark of 20 kW/m2, this meets the acceptance criteria. Assessment reference criteria at 2.1m boundary clearance CV1 b) = 27kW/m2 Assessment reference criteria at 2.5m boundary clearance CV1b) = 24kW/m2

5.4. Radiant Heat Flux – Values of Significance: Fire Spread Between Buildings

In addition to reference the CV1 criteria the following references are given. Whether a material will ignite from radiant heat depends on the amount of heat and if an ignition source (such as spark) is present. The following values give some typical examples of the amount of radiant heat necessary to ignite common materials. These values are referenced within the Guide to BCA [9] and are provided in this report for consideration where necessary as they form part of the description provided for the use of the BCA’s own verification methods. The figures are not taken as absolute but are used as a guide.

- Timber: o ignition in the absence of spark = 35 kW/m2 o ignition in the presence of spark = 20 kW/m2

- Curtain Materials: o ignition in the absence of spark = 20 kW/m2 o ignition in the presence of spark = 10 kW/m2



Table 2.8 of Drysdale [13] nominates the following figures as guidance on exposure of timber to radiation; these values are provided for additional support to figures used in the Guide:

- Combustion with pilot ignition after prolonged exposure = 12.5 kW/m2 - Spontaneous combustion after prolonged exposure = 29 kW/m2 - Fibreboard spontaneous combustion = 52 kW/m2

What is not clear is the size of the timber member tested to obtain these results. In many cases ignitability tests are undertaken on small, relatively thin material samples, lab tested, somewhat different to actual conditions experienced on site.

The input into the models in this assessment will use temperatures of 900oC. This assumption is a mean temperature value of the range provided by Quintiere in fundamentals of fire phenomena [14, Heat flux in fire] for fully involved room fires. It is also based on flame and smoke temperatures at the opening, effect of ventilation and air entrainment at the opening.

5.5. Attenuation of Radiation by Window Glass

We apply further comparison of results using information provided from studies on attenuation of radiant heat through glass, which are published in the Ignition Handbook [10, Ch 1.1]. This same method of assessment is outlined in the FEDG [3] and describes the review of glass attenuation within the models.

Window glazing will attenuate radiation but only if it has not cracked or fallen out. The probability of fallout does not become high until about 35kW/m2. Thus, for ordinary window glass, ignition of objects inside a room by flames outside a window is most likely to occur after the glass has fallen out [10 Ch1.1]. A single pane of the thinnest window glass in common use attenuates more than half of the incident radiation. Radiation is attenuated more if the angle of incidence is not perpendicular, for conservativeness the perpendicular condition may be assumed [10 Ch1.1]. Note: The perpendicular condition is relevant in this case.

An experimental study where the transmitted and re-radiated heat fluxes were measured through 6mm plate glass was performed by Moulen and Grubits. Over the heat flux range of 11.3 – 40.1 kW/m2 about 40 – 45% of the incident heat flux was received on the far side, divided roughly into 60% transmitted and 40% reradiated [10

Ch1.1].

This will be considered when assessing the results of the radiation assessments and the likelihood of fire spread within the building from radiation coming from the boundary. In this instance because the windows will be open able the use of fixed panel glass does not apply. However these characteristics are maintained as a point of technical interest to justify that smaller openings are used to reduce the radiant heat through the opening.

Mesh Screens or panel screen are a way to reduce the radiant heat by direct blocking. The radiation is developed by the HOT BODY object, which in the case of CV1b) is that from the boundary to the window. A Screen of deferent density or percentage opening cuts this down and assessed by the percentage of opening.



The laws of radiation and physics give a lineal relationship to the amount of the light, or radiation proportional to the open area of the shield or screen. Radiant heat is line of sight from the heat-emitting object, and that is blocked by solid objects. They absorb that radiation and transmit it or reflect it. These screens perform on the basis of the percentage opening and absorption. They do not need resistive fire testing to determine that performance when the substrate materials can withstand the radiation like steel.

Example, Screen clothes are sold to cut solar radiation by Blocking the radiant heat.

The Blocking is by any material that is not transparent, or that will not pass the radiant heat through it. Solid materials for fire screens are those that will sustain the heat, like steel, metals of most kinds and Stainless Mesh screens are the most popular methods. The mesh openings are typically 2.0mm in the weave of the mesh. In our expert opinion, the ability for heat and possible embers attack, to pass through a tested mesh like Crimsafe or SecureView (or equal) are diminished to radiant heat reduction only.

Fig 6. Window Radiation Screens and Mesh



SECTION 6. DESIGN FIRE AND SCENARIOS

6.1. Fire Hazard Assessment

Fire hazards include those typically associated with residential type buildings. No special hazards have been established. Internally buildings represent typical class 2 buildings with identical fire loads and combustible content to that expected in a Class 1 residential building including bedroom furniture, sofas, stored clothing and wall and floor linings.

Ignition sources are also typical to residential occupancies: electrical fault, appliance fault/failure, heaters, candles, cooking, hot works, human error, and smoking.

6.2. Fire Scenario – Temperature Input Value

Fire loads within the premises cannot be estimated as a certainty. Various publications provide values for fuel load energy densities for particular building classes/usage, which can be used to further estimate fire severity and duration. However with the use of CV1 for assessment, this type of fire severity and duration assessment (given as the complete worked example in the FEDG[3]) is not used. A temperature nominated for the radiation source is determined with consideration to:

- behaviour of fires at openings (e.g. heat and flames out, air entrained in i.e. estimated mean temperatures) [14];

- flame and compartment temperatures; - temperatures used in referenced documents worked examples for

assessing fire spread between buildings through radiation [3][12] .

Dr. V. Babrauskas released a report titled “Temperatures in flames and fires” which provides a useful tool for nominating temperatures applicable to radiation studies. Appendix D provides an extract from that report.

Buchanan uses a 600oC flame temperature in his FEDG publication and 800oC in his Structural Design for Fire Safety publication in examples of determining fire spread between two buildings ‘X’ distance apart, through an opening in the external wall.

The input into the models in this assessment will use a higher temperature of 900oC as a severe event and for conservatism. This assumption is a mean temperature value of the range provided by Quintiere in fundamentals of fire phenomena [14, Heat flux in fire] for fully involved room fires. It is also based on flame and smoke temperatures at the opening and air entrainment at the opening.



SECTION 7. ASSESSMENT CV1 - PROTECTION OF OPENINGS

7.1. Study 1 Car park Openings

Fig 7. Openings in Car Park

The car park has 3 openings on the LHS side boundary and one on the RHS boundary that are full height of the compartment (2.7m) of varying width to a maximum of 2.4m following the slope of the block. They are 2.5m off the boundary. The louvres offer full depth screening of the openings.

Assessment reference criteria at 2.5m boundary clearance CV1b) = 24kW/m2

Steel louvres are capable of exceeding 50 kW/m2 in radiant heat, so the 24 kW/m2 is well within their capacity to absorb and will be unaffected at the 2.5 distance off the boundary.

A 1.8m acoustic fence is being erected on the boundary opposite these openings. This fence in the section opposite these openings. The openings have sight line blocking steel louvres in place.

Vents under assessment –with steel louvres

Acoustic Fence– 1.8m High 2.5m



See the figure elevation below. This set of three louvres are of colorbond panelling and will provide a DtS method of the blocking of radiant heat from the adjoining site boundary.

The fence adds to this performance as it also reduces the openings to less than 0.9m in height and this is at a high level. The resultant assessment has identified that there are no ignitable source of combustible material within 3m of the boundary at the carpark.

In addition, the placement of the parking means any vehicle parked is 3m from any fire source feature on the boundary. Any car parked in the immediately vicinity of the openings will be behind the louvers so any point radiation received from the boundary is blocked.

Construction within the carpark is 90/90/90 and as such is non-combustible. These will be capable of meeting the received radiation levels of 24 kW/m2.

Fig 8. Boundary Openings in Car Park – Elevation of Wall

As seen from the elevation, the openings are almost completely obscured by the fence. At no point is the building not able to withstand the possible boundary radiation CV1 – 80 kW/m2 or in this case of 24 kW/m2. Louvres are non-combustible steel and allow no line of sight through. Under this arrangement - the carpark openings will met the acceptance criteria for CV1a) by withstanding the radiation levels with the type of construction proposed and satisfy CP2, CP8.

Acoustic Fence – 1.8m



7.2. Study 2 – Radiation from the Openings to the Boundary

We assess the design for openings in external walls that are within the NCC nominated distance to the boundary (Table CV1 (a)). From the results of the radiation models we are able to offer recommendations for alternative forms of construction. These alternatives are suitable for meeting the performance requirements of BCA.

Boundary offsets and opening sizes are input to the radiation model and the results are included in the appendices. Refer to the appendices in conjunction with the results tabled.

This external steel screening will further attenuate radiation in either direction to a level below that required by the NCC – as remodelled with the additional screening. As a result we deem the method of attenuation as a suitable means of achieving compliance to the performance requirements of CP2 in this instance.

A full list of openings under assessment is referenced in the plans and tables provided.

Window Type Size (WXH) Distance From Boundary

WS-01 3000 x 600mm 2.5m

WS-02 2200 x 600mm WS-03 1800 x 600mm 2.5m WS-03 1800 x 600mm 2.1m WS-04 1200 x 600mm 2.5m

Table 5. Windows being Assessed

WINDOW DISTANCE FROM

BOUNDARY

MODELLED HEAT FLUX

TABLE CV1(a) HEAT FLUX

Attenuated

Value

WS-01

2.5m 1.96 kW/m2

20 kW/m2 10 kW/m2 WS-02 1.16 kW/m2



WS-03 2.5m 1.16 kW/m2

WS-03 2.1m 1.79 kW/m2 25 kW/m2 12.5 kW/m2

WS-04 2.5m

Table 6. Radiation to Boundary

7.3. Conclusion

From our assessment we find the various radiant heat flux results are acceptable when results are compared to critical levels nominated in CV1 and as referenced within the ignitability data provided as part the verification methods adopted for this design.

The windows which are 2 typical sizes at 2 boundary offsets do not subject high enough levels of radiation to the boundary to be considered a fire spread risk. Under this assessment the openings are considered acceptable in comparison to the performance requirements of BCA.

7.4. Study 3 – Radiation to the Opening from the Boundary

We assess a condition of an imaginary fire at the boundary. CV1(b) states: when located at the distance from the allotment boundary as listed in Table CV1, a building is capable of withstanding the heat flux set out in column 2 without ignition.

The distances interpolated for the kW/m2 design requirements from the table for this assessment are:

CV1 (interpolation)

! @ 2.1m = 27kW/m2 ! @ 2.5m = 24kW/m2

Designing to satisfy these values is required to comply with the CV1 assessment method. No external fire scenarios are developed under this method of review. We apply the ability to the opening to withstand the falling radiant hat flux, based on the CV1 table as interpolated above. We have assessed that a window is open where they are split sash type so apply no reduction from the glass itself, normally 40%.

There are a number of references available that cite numerous acceptable minimum and maximum levels of heat flux limits for common materials. Two were given in section 6 which included those examples given in Guide to BCA in the explanatory notes.



CV1 b) Table of Results Summary

WINDOW DISTANCE FROM

BOUNDARY

MODELLED HEAT FLUX

CV1b)

Screen Reduction

(Transmitted) S.S Mesh

Attenuated

Value

WS-01

2.5m 24 kW/m2

44% (56%) 13.4 kW/m2 WS-02 24 kW/m2

WS-03 2.5m 24 kW/m2 44% (56%) 13.4 kW/m2

WS-03 2.1m 27 kW/m2 44% (56%) 15.1 kW/m2

WS-04 2.5m 24 kW/m2 44% (56%) 13.4 kW/m2

In all cases we have the acceptance criteria met with all levels below the 20 kW/m2 ignitability assessment level.

The mesh of the attenuation screen is 2.0mm in the Crimsafe or SecureView (or equal) and that embers are screened from entry. These products have tested evidence and bushfire ratings to BAL:40. There is no known evidence that piloted ignition can be propagated onto the materials set inside the room through a a steel mesh of 2.0mm from this condition. Therefore acceptance criteria have therefore been met.

7.5. Conclusion

With reference to the criteria nominated in CV1 the method of materials used for screening meets the criteria for designing to specific levels of heat flux, by avoiding ignitability reviews of materials and by eliminating the piloted ignition factor for materials inside the openings.

The criteria outlined for assessment by the CV1 verification method has been adopted. The use of decorative metal screens address required fire separation elements to a point where we deem the performance criteria has been satisfied.



SECTION 8. ALTERNATIVE BUILDING SOLUTION RECOMMENDATION

8.1. Summary of Results

The fire modelling performed for radiant heat escaping the new development indicates that the openings pass a radiant heat assessment generated under both a CV1(a) method of verification for radiant heat to the boundary and with a reference to fire spread data and values supplied and referenced in section 6.

All due consideration is given to the supporting guidelines and engineering evidence in the decision on this alternative solution.

8.2. Carpark Protection of openings

The radiant heat escaping protection from the proposed fence plus the installation of steel louvres in the wall openings as full sight line shields will prevent radiant heat passage through the carpark.

As a result the openings pass the radiant heat assessment generated under both a CV1(a) method of verification for radiant heat to the boundary.

As seen in the elevation below, the structure and exposure points are masonry and above the contents in the carpark.

Fig 9. Boundary Openings in Car Park

Under this arrangement - the carpark openings will meet the acceptance criteria for CV1a) by withstanding the radiation levels with the type of construction proposed and satisfy CP2, CP8.

Acoustic Fence – 1.8m



8.3. Opening Protection Screening Specification

The results from the radiation modelling show that attenuation to openings will be required to achieve the requirements of CV1.

The use of perforated metal screens is required in the report analysis. These include the Crimsafe stainless steel scree. In addition, on the southern side there are steel screens though initially used, as a decorative feature, will be mounted in the same manor as the Crimsafe screens listed below.

These will be permanently fixed to the outside of the building and be labelled as a fire protective measure.

- The decorative metal screens have 50% openings (but factor 40% applied)

- All windows will covered with Crimsafe attenuation screens

- Windows in the 400mm x 400mm are laminated Toughened panels, 50% attenuation factor applied

Stainless Steel Mesh

Stainless Steel mesh has been shown to have an attenuation of approximately 44% absorbed, 56% passes through.

When this factor is taken into account the received energy from the boundary are below the spontaneous combustion levels of glass used in the design.

This glass is below the failure value of the type being laminated or toughed glass for acoustic and sealed in a-frames fixed to the walls. Walls are fire rated as per DtS measures. The area of the openings is also small. The attenuation of the glass is taken into account, as the windows are both fixed and part openable.

A screening solution is considered acceptable as a result of this report. Crimsafe or SecureView (or equal) is an acceptable method of screening for the windows as nominated by this report. Crimsafe has been CSIRO tested within an AS1530 furnace test and results indicated that the radiant heat was reduced by as much as 44% in an AS1530.4 temperature curve test. SecureView has been tested by Exova Warrington for use in the various bushfire attack levels (BAL) and resulted in achieving approval for use up to highest level BAL40. [Exova Warrington Test Report 25354-00 Dec 4 2010]. As these screens were exposed to tests of continuous 40kW/m2, this falls below the assessment of 27 kW/m2 here, so are acceptable for that reason. Mesh are capable of resisting ember attack. There are 3 methods of mechanical anchor fixing the screens into place. They are:



A. Perimeter fixing to the outside edge of the window frame. B. Perimeter fixing to the outside of the window opening. C. The use of Standoffs permanently fixed to the building.

These are to be registered structural fixings (Hilti, Ramset)as per the structural engineers assessment and supplier details for then suitability of the attachment at elevated temperature.

Fig 10. Methods of Screening Installation

Screens recommended are to be manufactured by a registered supplier that has authenticated fire test data for radiant heat attenuation for their stainless steel screens and frames.

These works are to be completed by a trained and competent installer acceptable to the manufacturer to meet the installation requirements nominated above.

The decorative screens will be fixed by method C above. Provisions of mechanical anchors shall be fire rated type and builder shall not use chem-anchors for fire fixings.

SECTION 9. MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

A B C

Masonry Screens – fixed with mechanical steel anchor systems



To ensure future building users are aware of the application of this fire safety strategy, provide permanent signage appropriate to external conditions (plastic engraved labels) fixed to the screen in a location that anyone attempting to remove the screens will see the sign.

Engraved signs fixed (not glued) to the screens are required that state the following or similar:

THESE SCREENS FORM PART OF THE FIRE SEPARATION STRATEGY

FOR THIS BUILDING AND MUST NOT BE REMOVED

Fix the signs in an appropriate place that can be clearly identified at close range with text no less than 5mm high.

Building owners are responsible for the ongoing maintenance to ensure the screens are kept integral and are replaced where damage or corrosion has occurred.

This requirement will be checked at the end of the project construction stage for sign off.

SECTION 10. CERTIFICATION

We confirm that Ferm Engineering has analysed and prepared this assessment to determine acceptable openings in bounding construction for the proposed development at 21 Bellevue Ave, Gaythorne.

The external walls and opening sizes nominated that are reduced distances to the boundary are protected in order to meet the Building Code of Australia Section C performance requirements for fire spread between buildings on different allotments.

We verify that the alternative solutions applied satisfy the relevant performance requirements CP2 and CP8 and recommend acceptance under section A0.9.

If we can provide any further information contact Ferm Engineering on 3392 7722.

Signed on Behalf of: Ferm Engineering Pty Ltd

Stephen Burton MIEAust. CPEng, NPER, RPEQ 3633

Commercial in Confidence This Report is submitted in confidence and must be treated as confidential by the Principal to whom the Report is made. Disclosure to others of information provided in this Report would be a breach of the Proposer’s copyright. If it is necessary to disclose this information, the Proposer requires the Principal maintain a Confidentiality Agreement acceptable to the Proposer and contact us before reproducing the details contained within. ©Copyright 2015 FERM Engineering Pty Ltd



SECTION 11. REFERENCES

Australian Building Codes Board. Buiding Code of Australia 2014Volume 1 Class 2 to Class 9 Buildings. 2014. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Canberra, ACT: Australian Building Codes Board, 2014a. —. Guide to Volume 1 of the BCA 2014 Class 2 to Class 9 Buildings. Canberra, ACT: Australian Building Codes Board, 2014b. —. International Fire Engineering Guidelines. 2005. Canberra, ACT: Australian Building Codes Board, 2005. Buchanan, A H. Structural Design for Fire Safety. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2002. CAENZ. Fire Engineering Design Guide. Third. Edited by Michael Spearpoint. Vol. 1. 1 vols. Christchurch: New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering. CSIRO. “Crimsafe Standard Window ire Attenuation Test FSZ0688.” August 1999. Drysdale, D. An Introduction to Fire Dynamics. Second. Vol. 1. 1 vols. West Sussex: John Wiley, 2000. Incropera, Frank, and David Dewitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 5th. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2002. New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering. Fire Engineering Design Guide. 3rd . Edited by Michael Spearpoint. Christchurch, Canterbury: CAENZ, 2008. NFPA. The SFPE Handbook of Fire Safety Protection. Forth. Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2008. Quintiere, JG. Fundamentals of Fire Phenomena . West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Society of Fire Protection Engineers. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. 4th . Edited by Philip J et al DiNenno. Quincy, Massachusetts: National Fire Protection Association, 2008. Spearpoint, Michael, ed. Fire Engineering Design Guide. 3rd. Christchurch: New Zealand Center For Advanced Engineering, 2008. V, Babrauskas. Ignition Handbook. Issaquah, WA: Fire Science Publishers, 2003.

Radiation Assessment – 21 Bellevue Av, Gaythorne


APPENDIX A - PLANS



APPENDIX B - RADIATION ASSESSMENTS

Window WS-01 = 600h x 3000w – 2.5m To The Boundary

Result of open window assessment to the boundary = 7.2 kW/m2 PASS Result of window assessment to the boundary = 4.0 kW/m2 PASS

WS-01



Window WS-02 = 600h x 2200w - 2.5m To The Boundary

Result of an open window assessment to the boundary = 5.73 kW/m2 PASS Result of screened window assessment to the boundary = 3.21 kW/m2 PASS

Window WS-03 = 600h x 1.80w – 2.5m To The Boundary

Result of open window assessment to the boundary = 4.86 kW/m2 PASS Result of screened window assessment to the boundary = 2.72 kW/m2 PASS



FireWind 3.5 . FIRE MODELLING & COMPUTING, NSW, AUSTRALIA . Version 03 September 2002

licensed to FERM ENGINEERING Pty Ltd

Program Radiation

(All dimensions are in meters)

X-sources:

Radiation temperature 900°°

Distance Offset Size of source Opening

X Yx Zx Y Z %

2.5 0 0 1.2 0.6 90

RADIATION MAP XY

PX

Y -2.50

-2.50

2.50

2.50 Radiation flow, kW/m²:

2.00

25.25

48.50

71.75

95.00

Nodal radiation data, kW/m²:

Y \ X 2.50 1.25 0.00 -1.25 -2.50

2.50 0.000 1.345 1.270 0.907 0.632

1.25 0.000 5.254 2.499 1.327 0.802

0.00 96.64 11.94 3.382 1.542 0.875

-1.25 0.000 5.254 2.499 1.327 0.802

-2.50 0.000 1.345 1.270 0.907 0.632

Orientation of maximum radiation flow

at point P(0,0,0): θ = 90.0°, ϕ = 0.0°

WS-04



APPENDIX C - RADIATION REPORTS OF SCREENS

fire safety report radiation assessment 21 bellevue … · 2017-07-19 · acn 097 535 996 fire...

Documents