Icehawk Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Yesterday Donald Rumsfeld spoke about the necessity of American prepardness for another 9/11.When stairs remain the only evacuation means, how much safer are the post 9/11 tall buildings at WTC site? New innovations are perhaps not being fully exploited due to the conservative nature of architects and developers.How can ideas and inventions be taken up, brought to market and installed if engineers, architects and developers are not to support them and look to ways to incorporate these ideas into codes of practice for safer high rise buildings I would suggest its the occupants and those who work in the skyscrapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Yesterday Donald Rumsfeld spoke about the necessity of American prepardness for another 9/11.When stairs remain the only evacuation means, how much safer are the post 9/11 tall buildings at WTC site? New innovations are perhaps not being fully exploited due to the conservative nature of architects and developers.How can ideas and inventions be taken up, brought to market and installed if engineers, architects and developers are not to support them and look to ways to incorporate these ideas into codes of practice for safer high rise buildings I would suggest its the occupants and those who work in the skyscrapers.I think the biggest danger is fire. In addition to the normal sprinkler system, cities with tall and mega tall buildings should invest in helicopters. Helicopters modified to carry large amounts of water and or fire fighting solution. Deliver the solution to the fire in windows of the building, through the use of a nozzle placed on the front of the chopper, much like the aerial refueling nozzles on military craft. This would go a long way to improved the safety and evacuation process in the event of fire and or terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categor...cookie%5Ftest=1Automatic sprinklers are so effective, that no other method of fighting a fire even comes close. In fully sprinklered buildings, the NFPA has no record of more than 2 persons ever dying in a fire. Additionally, in sprinklered homes, NO ONE has ever perished from fire.Often times, the sprinkler system starts before anyone even knows a fire has started. Additionally, the heat generated from a fire can drastically affect the airflow around a building, making it difficult for a helicopter to operate safely nearby. And, the downdraft from a chopper can actually provide more oxygen for a fire to burn hotter. Consider that choppers battling range fires operate hundreds, or even thousands of feet above the fire itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categor...cookie%5Ftest=1Automatic sprinklers are so effective, that no other method of fighting a fire even comes close. In fully sprinklered buildings, the NFPA has no record of more than 2 persons ever dying in a fire. Additionally, in sprinklered homes, NO ONE has ever perished from fire.Often times, the sprinkler system starts before anyone even knows a fire has started. Additionally, the heat generated from a fire can drastically affect the airflow around a building, making it difficult for a helicopter to operate safely nearby. And, the downdraft from a chopper can actually provide more oxygen for a fire to burn hotter. Consider that choppers battling range fires operate hundreds, or even thousands of feet above the fire itself.Thats probably why Japan is investing so heavily in the choppers for fire fighting in thier country, because its not a good idea..............Thats where i got the idea by the way. They are heavily investing in it to combat skyscaper fires............The program/demonstration i saw didnt once have a chopper operating hundreds or thousands of feet above the fire. The chopper with the use of the nozzle, combatted the fire through windows in the building, not from far above............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I am unaware of Japan's fire codes, so I cannot comment on their need for helicopters. However, the city of Houston has required automatic sprinklers in all high rises built since 1981. Further, on November 22, 2005, the City passed an ordinance requiring a retrofit in EVERY building having floors above 75 feet. This would be one of the strictest fire codes in the country. Within 4 years, a water supply must reach every floor of a high rise. Within 9 years, 50% of all floors must be sprinlered. And, within 12 years, ALL floors must be sprinklered.http://www.nfsa.org/departments/regional/s...tsprinklers.pdfBecause an automatic sprinkler operates simultaneously with the alarm, often times the fire is out before the Fire Department arrives. For this reason, I believe that sprinklers are the most valuable fire fighting equipment you can have. In fact, home sprinklers should be required in new construction as well. Home fires account for 80% of all US fire deaths.Just as an aside: Both buildings that I have officed in in downtown are over 80 years old. Both have been retrofitted with automatic sprinklers. My office in both buildings were above 80 feet, the limit of HFD ladders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 However, the city of Houston has required automatic sprinklers in all high rises built since 1981. Further, on November 22, 2005, the City passed an ordinance requiring a retrofit in EVERY building having floors above 75 feet. This would be one of the strictest fire codes in the country. Within 4 years, a water supply must reach every floor of a high rise. Within 9 years, 50% of all floors must be sprinlered. And, within 12 years, ALL floors must be sprinklered.----------------------------------Just as an aside: Both buildings that I have officed in in downtown are over 80 years old. Both have been retrofitted with automatic sprinklers. My office in both buildings were above 80 feet, the limit of HFD ladders.Wow. I was unaware of this ordinance. This has an impact far beyond fire safety.Could that have been a deciding factor in the demolition of the Penn Hotel? When developers crunch numbers for future historic building reuse, that could be a deal-breaker. Not that I'm in favor of people meeting a firey end in pleasant architectural surroundings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 The new WTC7 is probably the safest new skyscaper on earth. The core walls surrounding the elevator shafts and transfer corridors are 27" thick thus lessening the effect of a similar 9.11 occurance. The stairwells have been moved further outboard at opposite ends of the building to lessen the effect of them being destroyed as they were above the impact zones of WTC 1 and 2. They have also designed the stairwells to be approx. 12" wider than code requirements to alllow for 2-way traffic: occupants down; firefighters up. These are all good ideas and would certainly save lives but you still have to account for the fact that there could very well be another jumbo jet loaded with fuel slam into the side-short of a windowless, reenforced concrete tube, I'm not sure what else you can do except ban all future high rises. That's not going to happen nor should it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brijonmang Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 this is why airport security is so vital...if you can stop terrorists from boarding the plane then you can prevent anything in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Wow. I was unaware of this ordinance. This has an impact far beyond fire safety.Could that have been a deciding factor in the demolition of the Penn Hotel? When developers crunch numbers for future historic building reuse, that could be a deal-breaker. Not that I'm in favor of people meeting a firey end in pleasant architectural surroundings...I'm surprised that to not have heard this criticism until just now. In new construction, sprinklers would likely add on a little less than a dollar per square foot (I'm eyeballing some figures on a pro forma over here, so don't take it to mean that this applies to all new buildings). But I'd imagine that retrofitting an older building would be potentially more expensive.I don't know how large the Penn building was, but if it was, say, 75,000 square feet, and the cost hit $1.25 per square foot to retrofit to code, then that'd be $93,750 out-of-pocket. On the other hand, the cost of insuring a building goes down pretty dramatically when it has some form of fire protection. Given the offsetting costs and benefits, it probably doesn't have too much of an impact, except possibly on the margins. So the answer is 'plausible but unlikely'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Tougher fire codes is what it takes to remove more of the old concrete eyesores, where do i sign up?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.