N/A
Standard: £9.95 + VATMembers/Subscribers: Free
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
The Structural Engineer, Volume 57, Issue 10, 1979
Miss Margaret Law (Ove Arup): I should like to comment on the fire engineering design for this building, since the structure under discussion does not have any fire cladding. It might seem surprising that a theatre holding 750 people which has no structural fire protection at all was deemed acceptable. In our development of the fire safety measures for the Royal Exchange Theatre, we adopted a design approach to fire safety, by setting out our objectives explicitly, rather than trying to meet the letter of the building regulations. For example, it was by no means clear whether the theatre or the Great Hall should be defined as the 'building' for the purposes of the regulations.
Computers and programs can be wonderful. Their misuse, however, can have enormously distressing consequences that may not be detected for years, and even then may not be fully realised. Please consider the following incidents, of which I have personal knowledge. J. Nayler
Fire protection regulations Mr. M. P. Ashmead drew attention to the disparate requirements of local authorities for fire protection design of steel frameworks (June l979), and his views in this respect, although not his proposals in their entirety, were shared by Mr. J. A. Tanner (September 1979). Mr. P. Nickson also disagrees with Mr. Ashmead's proposed applied loads when he writes: Further to the letter of Mr. M. P. Ashmead, regarding different cases for consideration for the design of stanchions in single-storey buildings and their fire protection, I feel that an addition to his four design methods is necessary. Verulam