Fire Technology

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 87–106 | Cite as

A Review of Fire Resistance Expectations for High-Rise UK Apartment Buildings



In the UK, prescriptive fire safety guidance offers a simple means of meeting statutory building regulation requirements, for most common building situations. In the context of prescriptive structural fire resistance, buildings are afforded a fire resistance period based upon their height and use. This fire resistance expectation is either to be achieved inherently by structural elements or via protection to them. The broad aim of such prescriptive guidance is the delivery of a consistent level of risk across all building types. For this to be achieved, as the frequency of fires and consequence of failure increases, the reliability of the fire resistance system must increase. This typically manifests in an increase in a building’s fire resistance expectation as height increases. Despite this common practice, this paper fundamentally reviews the concept of fire resistance as a height dependant metric for residential buildings, identifying the limitations of such an approach, utilising single stair apartment buildings as a basis for demonstration and further investigations. A risk correlation is proposed that seeks to explicitly define the structural fire resistance design goal (reliability of the fire resistance system) as a function of both height and occupancy. The correlation is calibrated against UK statistical data to determine what might constitute a common building. It is found that in single stair buildings, an appropriate benchmark case would constitute 7 apartments per level, ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedrooms (28 m2 to 101 m2). This benchmark case is used to determine a risk score which, for the purpose of achieving a consistent level of risk, becomes a constant in the proposed risk correlation. Four example building cases are chosen to demonstrate the application of the correlation. The cases are of the same notional height, but constitute differing occupancy (apartment) numbers. The proposed correlation indicates that the four cases, despite being of the same height, have significantly different fire resistance system reliability demands (96.3% to 98.5%) and, thus, fire resistance demands (154 min to 173 min). In light of the findings, it is concluded that, if conventional structural fire resistance thresholds are not to be exceeded (in the UK typically limited to 120 min), then, in tall residential buildings, the reliability/efficacy of the sprinkler system becomes increasingly important. Finally, a brief discussion is provided regarding the limitations of the approaches presented.


High rise Fire resistance Reliability Monte Carlo Apartments 


  1. 1.
    Communities and Local Government (2007) Approved Document B (fire safety)—buildings other than dwellinghouses. The Building Regulations 2010. CLG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    British Standards Institution (2008) Code of practice for fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings. BS 9999. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirby BR et al. (2004) A new approach to specifying fire resistance periods. Struct Eng 84(19):34–37Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    British Standards Institution (2003) Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings. Probabilistic risk assessment. PD 7974-7. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ministry of Works (1952) Fire grading of buildings. Post-war building studies No 20: Part I: general principles and structural precautions, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramachandran G, Charters D (2011) Quantitative risk assessment in fire safety, 1st ed, Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    London Fire Brigade (2015) Fire facts—fires in greater London. LFB, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Department for Communities and Local Government, (2015) Statistical data set Live tables on house building. Accessed 17 Aug 2015.
  9. 9.
    Wilson S (2010) Dwelling size survey. Housing standards: evidence and research, CABEGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roberts-Hughes R (2011) The case for space—the size of England’s new homes. RIBA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Littlefield D (2012) Metric handbook, Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    HATC (2006) Housing space standards. Greater London Authority, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Department for Communities and Local Government 2015. Technical housing standards—nationally described space standard. DCLG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    British Standards Institution (2002) Eurocode 1: actions on structures—Part 1-2: general actions—actions on structures exposed to fire. BS EN 1991-1-2. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    British Standards Institution (2007) Background paper to the UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-2. PD 6688-1-2:2007,Published Document, BSIGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Organization for Standardization (1999) Fire-resistance tests—elements of building construction—Part 1: general requirements. ISO 834-1:1999. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    British Standards Institution (2004) Fixed firefighting systems—automatic sprinkler systems—design, installation and maintenance. BS EN 12845:2004. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Law A, Butterworth N, Stern-Gottfried J (2015) A risk based framework for time equivalence and fire resistance. Fire Technol 50(4):771–784. doi: 10.1007/s10694-014-0410-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hall JR (2010) U.S. experience with sprinklers and other fire extinguishing equipment. Fire Analysis and Research Division, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), QuincyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trenton Fire Ltd.BicesterUK

Personalised recommendations