The Human Cost of Fire Safety Shortcuts in Building Design

While these decisions may reduce upfront costs or speed up construction, in the long term, these changes can carry very real human costs. Any changes made to the original fire and smoke safety design can completely alter how fire and smoke behave in the event of a real fire, leading to potentially grave consequences. Richard White, Commercial Director at Sertus, takes a closer look at why taking safety shortcuts in building design can cause huge issues later down the line. 

A Culture of Designing for Minimum Compliance

Modern buildings are increasingly complex environments, with the need for open plan layouts and mixed used space at an all-time high. All of this means that considerations for the way fire and smoke develops and spreads needs to be factored in at the very earliest opportunity. 

There are still too many projects that simply ensure that fire safety strategy is designed to meet the minimum regulatory requirement, rather than do everything possible to protect the lives of those that will use the building upon completion. All of this can lead to: 

• Under specified smoke control systems which don’t meet all the relevant standards

• Overreliance on guidance without rigorous scenario testing and detailed tested application due diligence.

• Limited considerations of how occupants might be affected when evacuating the building

Whilst the building may be technically compliant, it is still potentially vulnerable under real fire conditions, and therefore putting lives and property at risk.

Why Smoke Control Must Be Taken Seriously

There’s a common misconception that flames are the deadliest part of a fire and this simply isn’t the case. Smoke is the cause of 46% of non-fatal casualties in accidental dwelling fires were caused by being ‘overcome by gas or smoke’, with 32% of total fatalities being attributed to this. Smoke is hot, and spreads rapidly during fires, reducing visibility and fills escape routes with toxic gases. In poorly designed buildings, smoke can travel beyond the fire compartment, which can lead to corridors and stairwells being compromised within minutes. 

This further highlights just how important the role of smoke control is in the design phase for any building. If short cuts are taken in any of the key areas, it can cause a catastrophic failure. That’s why it is essential that the following aspects are considered:

• The layout of the building

• The interaction between compartments and escape routes

• The performance of ventilation systems under real fire conditions

Common Areas Where Design Shortcuts Can Occur

Fire safety compromises in building design are rarely deliberate, they normally arise through incremental decisions that have been made across the entire design and construction process. These small changes, whether they be for budgetary reasons, lack of knowledge and skills, and/or because of time pressures to complete the build can drastically alter the finished product, especially when it comes to fire and smoke control. 

Below are some of the most common areas where design shortcuts happen: 

1. Value Engineering of Fire Safety Systems 

When cost reduction phases take place, fire safety measures can often be scaled back or replaced with lower performing alternatives. For example, smoke control dampers are often reduced from EI to E performance, which jeopardises the buildings compartmentation and provides real risk to life in the event of a fire scenario. 

2. Simplified Smoke Control Strategies

Relying on generalised smoke control solutions that don’t take into account building-specific factors such as the height, layout or occupancy profile of the building can be potentially harmful for fire safety. This oversight can lead to systems that don’t deliver sufficient airflow or pressure differentials to protect escape routes adequately. 

3. Poor Integration Between Disciplines

A common reason for fire and smoke control not being implemented correctly is a lack of alignment between the proposed fire strategy, architectural design and building services engineering. Any changes to the layout and positioning of smoke control shafts/ducts, and/or internal stair doors and communal compartment walls can undermine the fire strategy set out at design stage. This usually has the biggest impact on smoke movement in most cases, which can cause significant risks in the event of a fire later down the line. 

4. Inadequate Consideration of Building Cycle
   Buildings rarely remain in the same usage throughout their life span, with spaces being reconfigured and potentially a change in use of the building. All of this can lead to a complete overhaul in the layout of the building, and if the original design doesn’t afford flexibility for future adaptation, fire safety performance can be significantly impacted. 

What is the Longer-Term Cost of Shortcuts?

Whilst shortcuts in building design will deliver short-term savings, you’ll often find that any cost-cutting exercises are often followed by higher costs over time. From both a financial and social perspective, shortcuts can be particularly damaging, as remediation works later down the line are costly and time-consuming. Below are just a few of the longer-term costs of shortcuts in building design:

Retrofitting and Remediation Works - Addressing fire safety deficiencies just before completion and handover due to poor product selection and design, will lead to significant delays in building occupation and will be more complex and expensive than getting it right at the design stage and sticking to the initial specification. 

Operational Disruption - Upgrades and repairs can impact building use, displacing occupants and interrupting services for extended periods of time. 

Legal and Regulatory Consequences - Non-compliance or system failure can result in enforcement action, liability and reputational damage, leading to increased insurance premiums.

Risk to Life - Most importantly, inadequate design increases the likelihood of harm in a fire event. There’s a vastly increased chance of risk to life if shortcuts have been taken and inadequate measures have been taken to mitigate risks. 

Every design decision has consequences for the people who will eventually occupy the building. In the event of a fire, those consequences become apparent in an extremely serious way, impacting residence and emergency services. When smoke and heat control is inadequate:

• Occupants may struggle to locate, or reach exits due to smoke filling key areas fire exits

• Evacuation times increase significantly due to decreased visibility

• Vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or those with mobility impairments, face vastly increased risk 

• Firefighters encounter more hazardous conditions during rescue operations 

Balancing Design, Safety & Cost

The safety of those who will occupy the building upon completion should always be at the forefront of thinking when making any decisions on design or amendments to design or choice of products. This is especially true of fire and smoke safety in particular, with the following standards being critical to preserving life:

• Treating smoke control as a critical life safety system, not a design afterthought or cost-cutting exercise

• Resisting cost-driven compromises that undermine performance and building compartmentation

• Designing with both current and future building use in mind 

• Ensuring systems are accessible, testable and maintainable 

This also means that those in charge must recognise that compliance is only the starting point. The real proof lies in how the building performs under real conditions, further highlighting the importance of scenario testing before the building is officially signed off use. 

Change Comes from a Cultural Mindset Shift in the Industry 

The only way that things can drastically change is if there’s a shift in mindset across the industry. It’s imperative that the question goes from ‘Does this meet the minimum requirement?’ to ‘Will this perform when it matters most?’. Protecting the people who rely on the building every day should be the priority for any building designer, and whilst cost-cutting exercises will always take place, it’s vital this doesn’t compromise safety standards. 

The impact of fire safety shortcuts is not always visible during design or construction. It only becomes clear in the moment a building is in an emergency situation. The problem with this is at that point, there is no opportunity to revisit decisions or upgrade systems. The consequences of the outcome are not measured in specifications or budgets, but in human lives. 

Richard White, Commercial Director at Sertus