Hopkin, C; Spearpoint, M; Hopkin, D and Wang, Y (2020) Fire safety design of open plan apartments in England. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 16(5), pp. 391-410. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
A review has been undertaken which focusses on the fire safety document 'Open plan flat layouts' (NF 19), where the review identifies that NF 19 comes with limitations in its representation of sprinkler performance and its adopted values for door closing behaviours, location of fires, heat release rate and number of occupants when compared to more recent literature. To assess the impact of assumptions for door closing behaviours and fire location specifically, an event tree analysis of exemplar apartments has been undertaken, comparing NF 19 assumptions to data from literature. This analysis indicates that the previous assumptions for these parameters would not be expected to alter the conclusions of NF 19. As a result of the review and analysis, recommendations are made for the design of open plan apartments. The paper ultimately lays the groundwork for future studies, where additional assessments are needed to consider other NF 19 assumptions, including sprinkler performance, as well as to reassess existing guidance limitations derived from NF 19.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | apartments; fire safety; flats; open plan; residential |
| Index terms: | England, open plan, future study, fire safety |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, Geography, design concepts, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here