Fire Protection Association
New Zealand
Private Box 302372, North Harbour Auckland 0751
Phone: + 64 9 414 4450
Email: info@fpanz.org
Web: www.fpanz.org
Institution of Fire Engineers
New Zealand Branch PO Box 3961
Wellington 6140
Email: secretary@ife.org.nz
Web: www.ife.org.nz
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
New Zealand Chapter PO Box 91511, Victoria Street West Auckland 1142
Phone: + 64 9 308 7030
Email: secretary@sfpe.org.nz
Web: www.sfpe.org.nz
FireNZ welcomes articles and letters from our readership. These can cover any aspect of fire protection, fire engineering (performance and design), legislation, fire safety practice, fire industry product development, fire fighting operations, techniques, equipment and case studies and technical news. All articles will be assessed by an editorial panel prior to publication who, at their discretion, reserve the right to either decline use of the article or seek amendments. Articles should inform, debate, educate and help our readership through sharing of both knowledge and expertise.
Themes for the upcoming magazine production will be promoted in advance of editorial committee deadlines to ensure all contributors are able to meet the final magazine delivery timelines.
The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Fire Protection Association New Zealand, Institution of Fire Engineers (NZ Branch) or the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (NZ Chapter).
Articles are published in good faith but FireNZ Magazine and its agents do not warrant the accuracy or currency of any information or data contained herein. FireNZ magazine and its agents do not accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the material in this publication.
Material in FireNZ magazine is subject to Copyright. This publication may not be reproduced in printed or electronic form without the permission of the publisher.
FireNZ Magazine is published by DEFSEC Media Limited on behalf of: Fire Protection Association New Zealand, Society of Fire Protection Engineers (NZ Chapter),
Engineers (NZ Branch).
About this product
XFLAM Insulated Panels are high performance, insurer endorsed, innovative products for fire resistant panelised construction. With a syntactic thermoset foam core, XFLAM has excellent fire properties, mechanical strength, superior thermal insulation, low toxicity and are completely recyclable.
XFLAM panels are specifically manufactured for roofing, internal and external walls, ceilings and architectural facades, with many accreditations including NCC Group 1 and AS1530.4 FRL’s, all critical characteristics for meeting the performance requirements of today’s building code.
BONDOR NZ can provide FM Approvals of 4880, 4881, 4471, and 4882 for confidence that the XFLAM Insulated Panels are fit for purpose.
Bondor NZ’s Volcore panel range consists of a non-combustible, fire-resistant, mineral wool core.
About this product
When absolute fire performance is a must, BONDOR NZ’s Volcore insulated panel gets the job done and is best suited for extreme, high risk environments such as multi storey developments, data centres and plant rooms.
BONDOR NZ Volcore has a mineral wool core manufactured from Basalt Rock, which achieves high Fire Resistance Levels (FRL) and is non-combustible, as required to C2D10 of the National construction code.
Volcore also has the added benefits of sound absorption with significant acoustic ratings and is thermally efficient with R Values up to 5.0. It is the market leader in fire rated insulated panels suitable for facades, cladding and exterior walls.
Justin McEntyre, President, Fire Protection Association of New Zealand (FPANZ), writes that in order to address current and future challenges we must encourage innovation, embrace new technologies, and take ownership of our role in safeguarding the public.
Firstly, I would like to pay mention of my long serving predecessor Chris Mak, now immediate past president. Chris has guided FPANZ and the Fire Protection industry for many years and I am very privileged to have the opportunity to work alongside Chris at an industry level. Chris continues to support and guide me on my journey with FPANZ.
Also a huge thankyou to Scott Lawson our CEO and Elaine Christy CFO for the diligent work you both do in running FPANZ and the annual task of delivering a world class Fire Protection conference and Expo here in New Zealand.
As I look back on my first year as President of the Fire Protection Association of New Zealand (FPANZ), I am struck by the immense responsibility and privilege that comes with being in a leadership role in this industry at a critical time.
The past year has brought both challenges and opportunities as we continue to safeguard our communities. It has been a year of learning, growth, and an increased
Justin McEntyre FPANZ President
awareness of the stakes at hand for our sector. Our industry is in the position of facing challenges and actions including Government review of Fire regulations, global implications from the fall out of Grenfell Tower disaster enquiry, emerging technologies, societal changes, and economic restrictions.
There is real opportunity for major impact from this. These opportunities only present every 10+ years and I encourage everyone to stay focused, stay engaged and contribute to the ongoing improvement of the Fire safety and Fire Protection industry.
The recent release of the Stage 2 report from the Grenfell Tower disaster in the UK serves as a sobering reminder of the consequences of failures in fire protection systems. The report highlights a cascade of lapses— from regulatory oversight to product certification and installation and sadly dishonest behaviour —that culminated in a tragedy on the greatest scale.
As we consider this report, it’s crucial to ask: how do we, in New Zealand, compare? Are we taking proactive steps to ensure our standards remain stringent and our systems robust? While we have made strides in certain areas, we cannot afford complacency. We must remain vigilant in our pursuit of fire safety and take lessons from Grenfell seriously, applying them to our own unique context. It would be foolish to assume that we are perfect here in NZ and ignore this chance for greater learnings and improvements across the sector.
The landscape of fire protection is constantly evolving, influenced by new technologies, design trends, societal changes, climate change, sustainable initiatives, and external
pressures. These advances often outpace regulation and standard practice, requiring us to innovate just as quickly.
Throughout the history of Fire protection, the solutions to these external challenges have been solved from within our industry, be it new technologies, regulation, engineering, or education and training. Therefore, the solution to current and future challenges will also rest upon us from within the industry. We cannot simply react to change—we must lead it.
It is tempting, at times, to fall into a complicit mindset, relying on established norms or shielding ourselves with indemnity clauses, liability protections, and rigid compliance frameworks. However, this approach does little to advance the cause of fire safety or protect the public.
I challenge every member of this industry to reject complacency. We must be contributors to solutions, not bystanders who hide behind the legalities of indemnity and liability. The consequences of failure are too great, and our role is too important to take lightly.
Whether we are designing systems, approving products, or installing fire protection measures, we all have a part to play in raising the standard. We must encourage innovation, embrace new technologies, and take ownership of our role in safeguarding the public and remain a respected industry.
This year we have an international and domestic speaker list stacked with talent and brilliant insights so please take the time at FireNZ 2024 to consider, learn and think how & where you can implement positive changes to the Fire protection across NZ and ensure you are a part of the solution.
Scott Lanauze, Executive Director, Institution of Fire Engineers NZ Branch provides an update of IFE NZ’s activities, including hosting a range of educational initiatives and representing the sector both locally and internationally.
It is my pleasure on behalf of the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) NZ branch to welcome you to FireNZ 2024. This conference, as has been the case for many years, offers us a great opportunity to collaborate with our fire industry partners and participate in discussion across the full spectrum of views within our operating landscape.
The recently released Grenfell Tower Phase Two report highlights the ever increasing need to review and improve how we operate as fire safety professionals today. Through all this, we as an industry need to carefully assess how we can implement the report recommendations to drive meaningful improvements and advancements in fire safety practices and professional standards worldwide, this then assisting our members within the fire safety industry.
In many cases, the recommendations of this report make for sobering reading and we as an industry need to ensure we uphold our commitment to competence and adeptness within our society as industry
professionals.
Our thoughts remain with all those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire and those who lost their lives in the tragedy. Professionalism is not just about qualifications or registrations; it is about displaying meaningful steps towards an ever changing need to adapt, grow, and monitor how well we perform within a challenging area of the building industry. The IFE in NZ remain committed to this mantra.
The IFE is a global professional membership body for those in the fire sector that seek to increase their knowledge, professional recognition and understanding of fire through a global discourse.
Founded in 1918, the IFE has been instrumental in shaping a future world that is safer from fire. Our membership provides for over 11,000 fire sector professionals of which continues to be supported by regular continued professional development activities, conferences and events. Our examination programme continues to build momentum locally, with a focus on building examination candidates in earnest within our various sector organisations.
IFE in New Zealand continues to partner with our associated agencies in aid of educational opportunities. Our initial round of webinars, having been developed in support of previous in-person presentations has proven successful, and plans are afoot to increase the offering of these webinars in additional areas of special interest. Our previous webinars are available for viewing on the IFE NZ website https://ife.org.nz/ife-webinarseries/ for those that haven’t been able to view them in a live setting.
Our regular one-day Firefighting operations for Fire Engineers workshop
continues to prove popular, this allowing fire engineers and people who work in fire related industries the opportunity to gain a better understanding of fire and smoke behaviour and firefighting techniques by involvement in a series of real fire simulations, gaining firsthand experience of real fires in building enclosures (including fire initiation and development), fire and smoke spread, flashover, the use of firefighting equipment, and search and rescue techniques. Further information on our next workshops are available on the NZ IFE website.
Our collaboration with the Fire Protection Association of New Zealand and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers has also provided an opportunity to provide a common message in many areas of the industry.
Our ability to collaborate and lead discussions within the industry to better inform reviews of designs, standards and codes has ensured the voice of the industry has been incorporated where possible. This collaboration has also extended to providing a common voice around media communications during events of interest.
Globally, the IFE in New Zealand is well represented. Our current president Jason Hill is unable to join us at FireNZ this year as he takes his seat as the Leader of the International General Assembly at the IFE Global Annual General Meeting in London. Jason’s presence in this forum will ensure the New Zealand voice is continuously provided to the IFE Board of Directors. Similarly, our Branch Council continue to support our cause in NZ through supporting initiatives and activities to local benefit; thank you to those on the Branch Council for your energy and commitment to delivering these outcomes in a voluntary sense.
Greg North, President, NZ Chapter Society of Fire Protection Engineers, provides an update on SFPE activities and opportunities for members to get involved in the Society and in helping to shape the future of the sector.
There has been several highlights over the past year, with the SFPE and its members in the forefront of several exciting developments, including the fire safety review of the building code; development of the Design Guidance Note: Fire Engineering Design for New Zealand Public Hospitals and a companion document to the Fire Safe Use of Wood in Buildings: Global Fire Design, and ongoing support of the University of Canterbury fire engineering course.
Minister Chris Penk has agreed to a New Zealand building code fire safety review. Rather than looking at changing the Building Act the review is aiming at changes at the code level and below, and also potentially looking at associated documentation and legislation around fire safety. SFPE is one of the dozen or more industry expert bodies involved in that.
Our current steps are working with MBIE to shape the direction of that work and providing feedback on what we see are the high level issues. Future steps involve public feedback and the
development of new updated guidance over the coming year or two.
This presents a great opportunity for people to be involved to make change and tangible improvements to fire safety provisions within New Zealand. Part of our focus will be to advocate for improvements where they are justified, and through becoming a member and being an active member, your voice can get heard.
There are a number of us already working on this, but it’s a significant body of work and a significant opportunity to make changes. Some of these changes are to resolve things like lack of clarity, conflicts between legislation and the like, so they will likely make a real impact.
The Health New Zealand Fire Safety Design Guide for Hospitals was published in July this year. Myself and a number of others have been involved over the past couple of years developing that guide, so that’s great to have that now done.
The guide is focused around providing a benchmark for new hospitals. We’re also writing a supplement to support improvements within existing buildings in order to provide greater clarity about what is reasonably practical when it comes to building upgrades. This supplement should be published later this year.
As reported in past years, there’s been focus on mass timber building design. In 2022, the Fire Safe Use of Wood in Buildings: Global Fire Design was issued internationally, and New Zealand’s Andy Buchanan was an author and editor of that publication.
Following that, there was a 2023 supplement around the design to
support building code compliance in New Zealand. This year, though – the third part of it – is the development of a commentary document to provide explanations of the Global Fire Design and supplement from a New Zealand context. This is in final publication mode now, so we’ll see this soon.
Another area of SFPE engagement has been our involvement in the University of Canterbury fire engineering course. We’ve been providing high level direction around how they can align their teaching with the needs of the industry, and we’re also supporting some of the teaching there through guest lectures by SFPE members, and through award contributions to students for their case study work.
We’ve had a new executive since the AGM late last year. We’ve welcomed new Members to the executive and thanked those who have departed. Our next AGM will occur after FireNZ and anybody is welcome to stand for roles in the executive. You can make change and influence the industry, and we’d love to see you stand up and put yourself forward.
Practice Note 22 (Version 2) has been two years in the making, but we’re now in the final draft stages of that. This will replace the 2011 Version One of the guide, which is an Engineering New Zealand document, and we expect this to be issued in the coming months.
It’s been a year since Loafers Lodge, and that tragedy is still very much in our minds. We’re mindful that there will be lessons that will be learned and these are yet to be resolved and published because of the ongoing criminal court proceedings.
We’re mindful that today’s environment is presenting challenges around financial constraints. Designing around budgets, projects going on hold; these are challenges that can also become opportunities for us to be thinking hard around making buildings safer and not using budget as an excuse to do nothing. It’s an opportunity to make reasonable upgrades and to work with our clients to pivot and identify better ways of doing things.
I remember Engineering New Zealand and technical committee meetings where there were discussions about sustainability and around how design can influence sustainability, but the focus has now swung around to simply keeping the lights on. It’s an environment that’s challenging us to meet society expectations around responsible designing and also responsible financial management, and balancing these.
Following the 2023 elections, we have a new government and a new Minister who has made some
statements around things like products and products supply. It will be interesting to see how some of the new government initiatives to keep the lights on will influence the industry if and when products from outside our traditional jurisdictions do come in.
We need to ensure that we provide feedback on the implications of such changes early. It’s a challenge for us to be mindful about how innovation can be good but potentially not-so-good.
One of our working groups has a focus on membership, professionalism, leadership and those initiatives. As a key body for fire engineering and fire safety professionals, we are always seeking new members, and to that end we’ve been looking to enhance and benefits of membership and to show the value of membership.
One of the things that we have been focusing on is membership engagement and delivering value to the Members. People should have been seeing quite a lot more communications from us this year. We’ve been publishing regular newsletters this year that highlight what the executive does, what’s going on in the industry, and publicising our ongoing webinars and other opportunities to connect.
And I’d like to think that 2025 will see even more and more engagement within our membership and with new members, including by our regional representatives who’ve been very active in driving local activities. Get in touch with your regional rep and let’s create even more connections through more activities.
Lastly, I wish all presenters, sponsors, exhibitors, and delegates that very best for Fire NZ 2024! We look forward to seeing you there!
This mortar provides fire resistance of up to 240 minutes, depending on the structural element to be protected.
With Perlifoc HP Eco+, you can have peace of mind knowing that you are making an eco-conscious choice.
Specifically designed for construction projects that care about their environmental footprint, by creating structures that not only meet the highest safety standards, but also contribute towards a greener future.
Whether you’re working on a commercial project or residential construction, Perlifoc HP Eco+ displays exceptional versatility and durability make it suitable for various applications for interior environments. Low density thanks to the use of light fillers, make it a high-performance mortar that offers thermal insulation properties, in addition to having the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD).
Environmental certifications:
EPD - Environmental Product Declaration Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Certification VOC content and emission (EN 16516)
LEED Compliance (VOC emission)
Fireproof and ecological mortar for the passive fire protection of steel, concrete, composite (concrete-steel sheet slab) structural elements, fire compartmentation and fire stop partitions. Fire resistance of up to 4 hours depending on the construction system.
Features
• Formulation with light high-performance fillers
• Non-combustible
• Can be sprayed by discontinuous machine to improve its performance by 15%
• Asbestos free – Complies with regulations 200/3/18/EC and RD 396/2006
• Good adhesion on different substrates
• Light and low abrasion with the use of spraying equipment. Saving on consumables
• Low protection thicknesses. Saving on transport and labour
• Wide range of fire solutions
Altex Coatings Ltd as proud suppliers of Perlifoc HP Eco+, are committed to supporting our customers every step of the way. We offer comprehensive training sessions and ongoing technical support to ensure that you maximize the benefits of this remarkable product.
If you have any questions or would like to learn more about how Perlifoc HP Eco+ can transform your projects into sustainable success stories, please don’t hesitate to reach out. We’re here to help!
Make a lasting positive impact on both your building and the environment with Perlifoc HP Eco+. Together, let’s build a brighter future!
the first biosustainable fireproof mortar getting points in LEED, BREEAM,
When it comes to selecting the right passive fire protection solution, Altex Coatings offer an outstanding combination of world leading fire protection coatings such as Perlifoc HP ECO+, Nullifire and Carboline, on-the-ground testing and research facilities and a dedicated team of technical experts.
The comprehensive range of services provided include product training for applicators, site surveys, design advice, on-site technical assessment, plus post-project inspections and laboratory services.
New Zealand Head Office, Technical Support & Manufacturing Plant, 91-111 Oropi Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112
W: altexcoatings.com
T: +64 7 541 1221
T: 0800 258 390 (Industrial technical support)
E: support@altexcoatings.co.nz
Grenfell report finds victims were “badly failed” by those responsible for their safety, and that all the deaths were avoidable, writes Paresh Wankhade, Professor of Leadership and Management, Edge Hill University.
Seven years after the fire in Grenfell Tower took 72 lives, the final report into the causes of the tragedy has been published. The inquiry’s findings place damning blame on companies, the government, bodies responsible for building regulation and emergency services. It concludes the victims were “badly failed” by those responsible for their safety, and that all the deaths were avoidable.
The first phase of the report published in 2019, investigated the cause of the fire, how it developed and the role played by the London Fire Brigade and other emergency services. The final report had a much wider remit and focused on the design, construction and management of the building. This included the role of the government in relation to fire safety and the Grenfell fire.
I’ve drawn on my expertise in the management of emergency services to summarise the report’s key findings and recommendations.
‘Systematic dishonesty’ by companies
The report highlighted the “systematic dishonesty” of those involved in testing and marketing the cladding panels and insulation present in Grenfell Tower. The inquiry accused companies of manipulating testing processes, misrepresenting data and misleading the market, to make the products seem safer than they were known to be.
It particularly named Arconic Architectural Products (who
manufactured and sold the rainscreen panels used in Grenfell’s external wall), Celotex (who manufactured the foam insulation) and Kingspan (who manufactured insulation panels), among others. The prime minister, Keir Starmer, has said that these companies will be barred from winning future government contracts.
The firms named have responded to the report. Arconic said it did not conceal any information about its products or mislead, and “[rejects] any claim that AAP sold an unsafe product”. Celotex said it has changed some processes in marketing and quality management since 2017, and continues to cooperate with the inquiry and relevant investigations.
Kingspan acknowledged “wholly unacceptable historical failings that occurred in part of our UK insulation business”, but noted that “while deeply regrettable, they were not found to be causative of the tragedy”.
The report criticised other organisations involved in testing, such as the Building Research Establishment (BRE), which held a trusted position within the construction industry and was recognised as a leader in fire safety.
The inquiry found serious flaws in how BRE tested and reported on the safety of products. For example, the report says the firm advised customers like Celotex and Kingspan on how to meet safety criteria rather than remaining independent.
The report noted: “In some cases we saw evidence of a desire to
Photo by Natalie Oxford - https://twitter.com/Natalie_Oxford/commons.wikimedia.org
accommodate existing customers and to retain [BRE’s] status within the industry at the expense of maintaining the rigour of its processes and considerations of public safety.”
BRE said it will “be reviewing the report and its recommendations and will continue to work constructively with government to ensure the new building safety and testing regime delivers on the findings of the Inquiry’s report and is fit for purpose”.
These damning findings expose what some have described as a longstanding “culture of contempt” for people and due process on the part of those responsible for Grenfell. Starmer said that Grenfell raises “fundamental questions about the kind of country we are”.
The report concluded that the fire at Grenfell was the “culmination of decades of failure by central government” and others in the construction industry. Most notably, the government’s repeated failure to respond to the information available about the danger of combustible materials.
It also blames the ConservativeLib Dem government’s “deregulatory agenda”, which it says led to “matters affecting the safety of life [being] ignored, delayed or disregarded”.
The report is also critical of the council landlord (the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) and the tenant management organisation in relation to their approach toward safety and refurbishments at Grenfell Tower. The role of local councils and resident organisations in maintaining the safety of buildings and residents needs to change, to make sure fire safety concerns are responded to and acted on quickly.
A recent fire in Dagenham, another high rise building in London, suggests that the lessons of cladding risks from Grenfell have still not been fully learned. And thousands of buildings throughout the country are still fitted with unsafe cladding.
The new government’s resolve and commitment will be tested to both fully recommend the report’s findings, and to change the lackadaisical attitudes towards fire safety regulations in a tight fiscal climate. Starmer has told parliament that “this must be a moment of change”.
The first report criticised the London Fire Brigade for failing to identify training needs, particularly in responding to fires in high-rise buildings. The final report blames a “chronic lack” of leadership in the LFB, and recommends setting up
an independent College of Fire and Rescue.
London Fire commissioner Andy Roe said the brigade had implemented the recommendations from the first phase of the report, including improved training and equipment, and would continue to do so.
While no timescale has been set, it would be done in consultation with the National Fire Chiefs Council and will be evidenced-based to cover all aspects of training, education and research. This should be welcomed by the sector, which has suffered for a lack of independent professional body like the College of Policing and the College of Paramedics.
Families and survivors of the Grenfell fire have expressed frustration with a “carousel of blamepointing” by those who gave evidence to the inquiry.
The final report should provide some solace in this regard, firmly laying out the responsibility and complicity of national and local government bodies, the construction industry, regulators and first responders.
But bringing any criminal prosecutions will be a long process. The Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecutions Service say they must carefully study the report findings “line by line” before bringing possible charges at the end of 2026. These could include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, fraud, perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office.
This is not going to be easy but will send a strong message and help find “seeds of hope” for the grieving families of the Grenfell tragedy.
The report’s findings – and future action to implement its recommendations – are a stark exposure of malpractice, and will hopefully help untangle the nexus between manufacturers and regulatory bodies in the interest of fire safety and preventing future tragedies.
This article was originally published on 05 September 2024 in The Conversation.
In today’s world, the need for effective fire protection in tall storage buildings has become more critical than ever. With the increasing recognition of high hazard commodities, a new generation of in-rack sprinkler systems has been developed to address these challenges. One such innovation is the N-RACK-EC® Extended Coverage In-rack Sprinkler System by Reliable, designed to substantially reduce the number of in-rack sprinklers required while maintaining low water demand.
Several modern in-rack sprinkler systems now utilize the “Virtual Floor” concept. This innovative approach allows in-rack sprinkler systems to protect commodities stored in racks without relying on the ceiling sprinkler system. By considering the highest level of inrack sprinklers as a “Virtual Floor,” the ceiling sprinkler system can be designed independently. This concept is detailed in NZS 4541:2020, Clause 9.4.4; NFPA 13, 2022 edition, Section 25.6; and FM Data Sheet 8-9 Section 2.3.6.
Reliable offers a range of modern inrack sprinkler systems to meet various fire protection needs. These include:
• The N-RACK-EC Extended Coverage In-rack Sprinkler System using the Reliable Model N252EC Sprinkler with horizontal barriers.
• The ESFR In-rack Sprinkler System using the Reliable Model JL-14, JL17, P22, or P25 Sprinkler.
• The K115(min.) In-rack Sprinkler System using the Reliable Model F1FR LO, GFR K115, or GL112 Sprinkler with horizontal barriers.
These systems are designed to protect open frame, single, double,
and multiple-row racks up to 4.7m deep, with unlimited ceiling/storage height and various commodity classes, including Class I-IV and Group A plastic commodities.
The N-RACK-EC system brings modern sprinkler technology to in-rack sprinkler systems. By using the Model N252EC sprinkler in conjunction with horizontal barriers, the system reduces the number of in-rack sprinklers needed, thereby limiting costs for labor and materials. Additionally, the N-RACK-EC system is installed without balancing or adding the in-rack sprinkler water demand with the water demand for the ceiling-level sprinkler system, further reducing overall water demand.
Join Reliable Technical Services
Manager Greg Wilson for his presentation “The return of In-Rack Sprinkler” at FireNZ on Thursday 24th October at 2.10pm in Meeting Room 1-B ‘Mokopuna’.
About the author: John Corcoran is the Marketing Director at The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. Inc. He has enjoyed over 30 years in the fire sprinkler industry in both manufacturing and contracting firms.
The N-RACK-EC system is particularly beneficial for tall storage buildings and high hazard commodities. It reduces the number of sprinklers and sprinkler levels needed for very tall rack storage while limiting water demand. This makes it a costeffective option for protecting modern tall storage buildings where in-rack sprinklers are necessary. Whether for new construction or retrofit projects, the N-RACK-EC system provides an efficient method of protecting rack storage and limiting the water demand of the ceiling-level sprinkler system.
The Model N252EC sprinkler is a K25.2 (360 metric) Extended Coverage Pendent Sprinkler suitable for both storage and non-storage applications. It is cULus Listed and FM Approved, making it a reliable choice for various fire protection needs.
In conclusion, modern in-rack sprinkler systems like the N-RACKEC offer innovative solutions for enhancing fire protection in tall storage buildings. By reducing the number of in-rack sprinklers required and maintaining low water demand, these systems provide a cost-effective and efficient method of protecting high hazard commodities and ensuring the safety of storage facilities.
Model N252EC Pendent with optional guard
offers a new generation of in-rack sprinkler systems for taller storage Extended
Coverage In-rack sprinkler system substantially reduces the number of in-rack ESFR In-rack Sprinkler System include the Reliable Model JL-14, JL-17, P22, and P25 Sprinklers.
Referenced in:
• NZS 4541:2020
Clause 9.4.4
• NFPA 13, 2022 edition, Section 25.6
• FM Data Sheet 8-9
Section 2.3.6.8
It is known that lithium-ion batteries pose a fire risk, at least since mobile phone batteries were found smoking in vehicles and airplanes. Batteries are also hazardous when disposed of incorrectly and end up in recycling centers – where they have now become the number one fire risk. To prevent fires at an early stage, early fire detection systems based on infrared thermal imaging cameras are being used.
When an electric toothbrush stops working, it gets thrown into the household trash. It is picked up the
next day by the garbage collection service, which takes the waste to the nearest municipal waste disposal site. This sounds like an everyday situation, but it poses serious hazards for recycling processes. Lithium-ion batteries are spontaneously combustible and highly sensitive to external influences. They become hazardous as soon as they enter refuse collection vehicles where the compacting processes generate high temperatures and pressures. Damage to the battery membranes can lead to short circuits, which in turn can cause spontaneous combustion. When a refuse vehicle arrives at the collection depot’s in-put facility for further recycling, the hazards continue: the batteries suddenly come into contact with oxygen enabling any fires to spread. But even when that does not happen, the hazards have not yet been eliminated. Lithium-ion batteries may ignite hours, days or weeks after disposal, as well as during further processing of the waste. Shredding exerts immense forces on a battery, and mechanical destruction can lead to heating and spontaneous combustion. Every second then counts. Entire warehouses have gone up in flames within minutes resulting in massive damage.
The waste and recycling industry says it’s fighting up to 12,000 fires a year caused by discarded lithiumion batteries.
• Aqueous Vermiculite Dispersion (AVD) fire extinguishing agent is a new, revolutionary technology.
• Applied to lithium battery fires as a mist, extinguishing them and preventing the propagation of the fire.
• Early Fire Detection: Detects sources of fire without contact by detecting critical temperature thresholds.
• Surveillance & recognition of spontaneous fires on conveyors, waste transfer stations & stockpiles.
• Hydraulically driven water and foam oscillating monitors with wide swiveling ranges and adjustable flow rate.
• Used for areas with large distances between accessible points where risk of exposure to fire is severe.
Businesses can quickly be pushed to the brink when other options are not available or are difficult to find. Companies exposed to fire hazards are therefore using technology as well as other safety methods to combat risks. Infrared thermal imaging cameras play a particular role here, monitoring temperatures at waste disposal sites or waste recycling plants, raising alarms when critical thresholds are exceeded, and managing automatic extinguishing. The early fire detection specialists at Orglmeister Infrarot-Systeme GmbH & Co. KG from Walluf near Wiesbaden (Germany) have developed PYROsmart ®, an intelligent solution based on infrared thermography for the early detection of fires.
Spontaneous combustion of a damaged battery generally becomes apparent only very slowly. Temperatures in the equipment rise gradually before a spark is produced. Early fire detection systems therefore need to measure temperatures continuously and precisely. This is exactly what infrared-based early fire detection systems such as PYROsmart ® provide: high-resolution detection of temperatures across entire spaces. Thermography is an established procedure, based on the principle that any object emits infrared light waves according to its temperature. Infrared thermal imaging cameras use a sensor to measure such waves. Modern systems can use this information to create a thermographic, panoramic image. The evaluated pixels are displayed in different colors according to temperature.
Fire sources occur in recycling plants for very different reasons. Particularly at risk in waste recycling are free-falling material and conveyor belts, as they can act as spreaders of fire hazards. If a lithium-ion battery is shredded and ignites, a number of things may happen, e.g. a flash, causing instantaneous fire. However, it is also possible that the shredded material introduces multiple hotspots into the system within a very short period of time, and that these hotspots reach different parts of the plant via the conveyor belts. For conveyor systems, Orglmeister has the PYROsmart® NS system: an early fire detection system that monitors falling material flows at conveyor transfer points. This is where fire hazards are particularly great, as previously buried hotspots come into contact with oxygen and then become very hot. Natural heat generated during shredding has mostly cooled down again by the time material reaches the transfer point, so the thermal imaging camera can detect with pinpoint accuracy if battery components are continuing to heat up. PYROsmart® uses high-resolution and high-speed
thermal imaging lens from FLIR with aperture angles from 29 to 95 degrees. Falling material can be monitored at 30 infrared images per second. The FLIR lens detects potentially excess temperatures early and in real time, even at belt speeds of up to 2.5 meters per second. The PYROsmart® system can be configured individually for each application via separate contact outputs. Conveyors can then be stopped immediately to prevent the burning or
embers from spreading throughout the plant. Direct operation of extinguishing systems is also possible. In waste processing plants, this requires special solutions. Conventional sprinkler systems do not provide sufficient coverage to instantly extinguish and cool hot batteries. Burning metallic lithium is also generally very difficult to extinguish. The sector therefore often installs water spray monitors that eliminate fires with pinpoint accuracy preventing further damage to the plant.
The practice-proven PYROsmart® extinguishing software communicates with fi re-monitor extinguishers from all major manufacturers and controls targeted extinguishing in the event of an alarm – dynamically adapted and fully automated.
Hazards still remain even when the material finally arrives at the storage facility. Damaged battery cells are susceptible to delayed spontaneous ignition. Self-reinforcing, explosion-like burning of the battery, known as thermal runaway, can occur at temperatures as low as 70 to 80 degrees Celsius. The key to avoiding such a major danger is prevention. The indoor PYROsmart® FS pro solution enables the full monitoring of large areas with high radiometric spatial resolution. It does this by using a pan/tilt system that combines an infrared thermal camera with a zoomable video camera with night vision capability. The system can then monitor significantly larger areas than conventional, fixed camera solutions. The individual images are combined into a panoramic, thermographic image via software. Any occurring hotspots can be precisely localized within the space. Targeted extinguishing using fire-monitors can then take place. In recycling center operations, it is important that incidental heat is detected and identified as nonhazardous. For example, the hot exhaust pipe of a wheel loader or the hot brake disc of a truck in the hall should not trigger any alarms. The early detection system therefore has an intelligent evaluation system for non-hazardous temperatures which, based on many years of practical experience, functions safely and reliably even in tough everyday conditions,
thereby differentiating fire hazards from harmless heat sources. Hotspots are detected early and quickly, and annoying false alarms and unnecessary interruptions to operations are prevented.
The system visualizes both the recorded thermographic panorama image and the video image on one screen. To enable the fastest possible localization, it is also possible to switch between infrared and video images. Infrared thermography makes PYROsmart® particularly suitable for use in adverse, dusty environments, such as those commonly found at landfills or in the recycling industry. Compressed air cleaning integrated in the cameras keeps the camera lenses permanently clean, thereby enabling use in dirty environments. The systems are certified according to VdS guideline 3189 and FM approval 3260 for fire protection temperature monitoring.
A recently published research project reveals a bright future for augmented reality (AR) in fire safety training, with initial tests demonstrating superior training outcomes.
A Massey University project has demonstrated the potential of AR as a more engaging and impactful training tool, with participants showing less decline in knowledge levels compared to those using conventional training methods.
The project saw the development of an AR prototype that immerses users through a headset into a simulated fire scenario within their environment with participants receive step-by-step instructions on how to exit a building on fire from a virtual firefighter.
Following development and testing of the prototype, lead researcher Dr Daniel Paes and his team conducted a comparative study involving two groups: one trained via AR and the other through a traditional videobased method. Both groups were tested against a series of learning performance metrics, with the AR training group exhibiting a better performance across key areas,.
“We found that while knowledge levels were comparable, AR training was more efficient in providing self-
efficacy and intrinsic motivation, which are important factors for learning performance,” said Dr Paes.
Participants trained in AR reported a significant boost of motivation after training, almost 100% higher than the other group, and maintained their confidence levels four weeks after training, while the other group experienced a decline.
“Our goal was to determine the viability of AR as a tool for fire safety training,” said Dr Paes. “The results showed AR has merit to be used as a tool in these situations, not just because it’s fun to play with but because they’re learning by doing and retaining important, life-saving information.”
While virtual reality (VR) has traditionally dominated this space, augmented reality offers distinct advantages, notably in its versatility and adaptability.
“Unlike VR, which confines users to pre-designed and fully virtual settings, AR works into the existing environment and fosters a more realistic and intuitive learning
experience, aligning with users’ cognitive processes,” explained Dr Paes.
The next step of the project will see the refinement of the AR prototype to optimise its interactive and feedback features.
“Our ultimate objective is to see widespread adoption of this method and technology and to collaborate with safety committees and fire safety organisations globally to enhance human safety in fire emergencies,” he said.
Beyond fire safety, the broader implications of AR technology are significant. The Massey School of Built Environment team envisions its integration into diverse domains, from disaster preparedness to vocational training.
The research was completed by Dr Daniel Paes and his team of Dr Zhenan Feng, Maddy King, Hesam Shad, Dr Prasanth Sasikumar, Dr Diego Pujoni and Associate Professor Ruggiero Lovreglio.
This news was originally reported in Massey News on 05 August 2024.
We're using � as our official event app. Download the app and join our event to:
C) Personalize your agenda
C> Receive event updates and notifications
C> Connect with other attendees
C> Create and join meet-ups
With new forms of energy use come new risks. Our growing reliance on electrically powered devices, from tablets to smartphones, and the rise of innovations like electric vehicles and rooftop solar panels increase the strain on domestic wiring systems. The 2022 Global Claims Review by Allianz insurance highlighted fire as the leading cause of corporate insurance losses, with damages in the billions. Additionally, the human cost is significant, with approximately 4,000 fatalities and 134,000 injuries annually.
The main cause of casualties in indoor fire are smoke and hazardous emissions which significantly reduce the chance to escape and extend the damage to goods far behind the burned area. The contribution of cables is key both in active and passive protection. Electrical cables enable the supply of energy and the transmission of information. They can contribute to improve the time to escape the fire.
Nexans Low Fire-Hazard cables are engineered for enhanced performance under fire conditions. These flame retardant low-smoke, zero-halogen cables have a hard wearing, lead-free, flame-retardant sheath that dramatically reduces health risks as well as environmental impact. Nexans Low Fire-Hazard cables are also non-migratory and suitable for polystyrene applications, designed to ensure safer cabling in public places like hospitals, airports, and tunnels.
Nexans Fire-Resistant cables are essential components of a building safety system. During the evacuation process, they ensure that critical functions (warning systems, smoke detector, smoke extractor, emergency exits, and fire lighting equipment) remain functional, even under a long exposer to flames. They significantly delay the propagation of a fire, thus gaining precious time for evacuation and fire-fighting, reduce to a minimum opaque smoke and acid gases, the prime cause of fire-related deaths, and damage to equipment and structures.
In addition to offering separate Fire Safety cables, Nexans incorporates Low Fire-Hazard cables into our engineered and manufactured Nexans Modular Wiring System to
enhance fire safety. The system operates with several key features to improve safety:
• Cable specification – cables with the correct fire safety properties (low fire hazard) are specified in advance, prepared in the factory, tested and then delivered to the site. The process is transparent and eliminates the risk of non-compliant cable being installed in the building.
• Cable routing – with modular wiring this is pre-designed, and the wiring systemizing and lengths are determined in advance. All the modular wiring elements are clearly labelled and identified per the design.
• Service penetrations – breaches in building fabric are a major contributor to the spread of fire. In a modular wiring system, service penetrations can be appropriately designed and specified in advance – including the allowance of fire stopping and intumescent protection.
• Safe terminations – all junctions, connections and terminations in modular systems are made and tested in the factory, reducing the scope for installation errors being made on site.
Nexans’s priority is to provide our customers and partners with everything they need to design and build safe and sustainable projects. Our comprehensive range of cables and Modular Wiring represents the forefront of innovation, designed to help you anticipate risks, secure your assets, and protect lives.
THE ULTIMATE RANGE OF PACKAGING SOLUTIONS FOR SMART, EFFICIENT AND SAFE INSTALLATIONS.
The future of electrical installation is now more efficient, safer and sustainable with Nexans new cable spool system.
A groundbreaking 360° Self-Spinning Drum for simple, secure and smarter cable installation.
Deeco
Upon registration you will receive an invitation to download our conference app where details of the presentations will be shared. Any amendments to this program will be available on the conference app.
Wednesday 23rd October THE
8.00am
6.00am EHS/Exhibitor Pack In
10.30am Jess Barton/ Scott Lanauze
11.00am FPA Passive CoP –Draft Release
12.00pm –1.30pm Registration & Trade Show opens / Lunch
1.30pm Opening by Event MC
Supporting vulnerable communities during bushfires –a practical approach by invitation only
1.40pm SPEAKER: Dr Dave Gittings Orbital Fire
2.05pm KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Daniel O'Dea
2.40pm SPEAKER: Prof Patrick van Hees Bensan
3.05pm –3.55pm Afternoon Tea
3.55pm SPEAKER: Craig Nixon MBIE Workshop –The Future of Fire Regulations AkzoNobel
4.20pm SPEAKERS: Gilbert Gordon, Shaun McCarthy Winstone Wallboards
4.45pm SPEAKER: Michael Belsham Ryanfire Products
5.10pm SPEAKER: Dr Aatif Ali Khan Steel & Tube
5.35pm Conference Close / Recap Drinks and Canapes
7.00pm –10.30pm FireNZ Presidents Club by invitation only
Please note that the speakers and topics are correct at the time of printing but are subject to change if required
www.firenz.org | www.linkedin.com/company/firenz/
The EvacUElite is designed to facilitate the orderly evacuation of a building in the event of a fire or an emergency.
Compliant with NZS4512-2021 & FPANZ listed (references AC/110 & AC/111)
User-friendly interface and menu, including a 9” colour touchscreen user interface
Highly flexible and user programmable to suit site-specific needs and changing requirements
Minimal cabling needs & single-point programming, ensuring cost and time saving across the system’s lifespan
Available in a 13U wall mount or 24U floor-standing cabinet. Networkable up to 64 nodes.
Time
7.00am Registration & Trade Show opens
8.00am Opening by Event MC
8.05am Opening address by FPA, IFE, SFPE Presidents
8.20am KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Jessica Barton
8.55am SPEAKER: Graeme Thom Bensan
9.20am SPEAKER: Saskia Holditch
9.45am KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Dame Judith Hackitt
10.30am –11.20am Morning Tea
11.20am KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Hayley Burgess
SPEAKER: Sara Hosseini Promax
11.50am SFPEX SPEAKER: Spencer Johnstone Snapdrill
12.05pm KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Daniel O'Dea Soteria Doors
12.35pm –1.30pm Lunch
1.30pm KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Prof Wojciech Węgrzyński
2.10pm SPEAKER: Viktor Yarchuk Reliable Fire Sprinklers
2.35pm KEYNOTE COUCH SESSION
3.25pm –4.15pm Afternoon Tea
4.15pm SPEAKER: Vance Rowe Fire Protection Technologies
4.45pm SPEAKER: Becky MacDonald
SPEAKER: Vincent Selvakumar Comfortech
5.10pm SPEAKER: Dr Charley Fleischmann Clarinspect (FireQA)
5.35pm SPEAKER: Mike Inwood
6.00pm Conference Close / Recap
6.30pm Drinks and Canapes
7.30pm GALA DINNER
Close of Day Two
SPEAKER: Cameron Douglas Potters
Please note that the speakers and topics are correct at the time of printing but are subject to change if required
AND
www.firenz.org | www.linkedin.com/company/firenz/
PROGRAMME: DAY THREE Friday 25th October
THE FORUM OF FIRE PROTECTION, FIRE SAFETY AND FIRE ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS www.firenz.org | www.linkedin.com/company/firenz/ Time
7.30am –
8.30am Registration & Trade Show opens
8.30am Opening by Event MC
8.30am SPEAKER: Martin Feeney, Angela Chen
8.55am SPEAKER: Frank Kang
SPEAKER: Maryse Fahmi Fire Protection Technologies
SPEAKERS: James Firestone, Sophia Cao Fire Safety Equipment
9.20am KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Prof Wojciech Węgrzyński Abodo Wood
10.00am KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Jessica Barton Kingspan
10.30am –11.10am Morning Tea
11.10am KEYNOTE COUCH SESSION
12.20pm –1.20pm Lunch
1.30pm Trade Show closes
1.20pm SPEAKER: Dr Mikko Salminen
1.45pm KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Hayley Burgess
2.20pm SFPEX SPEAKER: Holly Davenport
2.35pm Formal conference closing address
2.40pm –3.00pm Afternoon Tea
3.00pm Conference Closes
Please note that the speakers and topics are correct at the time of printing but are subject to change if required
We ordinarily design buildings to ensure people can get out when they need to, but what about when getting out isn’t an option? It’s a question, says Jessica Barton, Fire Safety Consultant/Engineer, Bloom Fire Consulting, that requires a mind shift. Interview by Nicholas Dynon.
Jessica Barton graduated from her master’s degree in 2020 from The University of Queensland, completing her thesis on the topic of fire-fighter fatalities in wildland fire settings. Since then, her work has seen her solving design issues from the furnace of wildfires to the freezer of Antarctica.
Among Jessica’s most notable works is the upgrade and redevelopment of multiple Antarctic research stations as part of Australia’s Antarctic Infrastructure Renewal Program (AIRP). It’s a project that involved significant design complexity and innovation given the extreme environmental conditions and the challenges of international design team collaboration.
In addition to her commercial work, Jessica has been heavily involved in raising awareness around the fire engineering design of buildings within wildland and bushfire settings, and this is a topic that dominated our interview:
ND: I’d be really interested to understand what led you to fire safety in the first place.
JB: For a long period of time I wanted to become an engineer, but didn’t know exactly what type of engineering to go into. So when I went into university, it was a natural process of reduction. I definitely didn’t like mechanical, and definitely didn’t like electrical. I kind of fell into civil, and that was the original path that I was heading down.
I then did a research-based course at the end of my first year, and we had to do some volunteer work at one of the labs around the university. We were given a list of different options, and one
of them was the Fire Lab. I thought, they’re burning some stuff… that’s quite interesting!
At that time, they were conducting an experiment burning Christmas trees to assess the impact of that on the risk to people in their homes at Christmas time, and I thought that seemed quite interesting. I worked in that lab as part of my course, and that was where I found my interest for fire engineering.
Before that, I’d never actually heard of fire engineering. I didn’t know it existed. And I think that’s a common thing. But that experience is what sparked my interest in the field - pun intended!
After doing a few elective courses throughout my second and third years, I decided that I would switch over to an integrated Bachelor and Master’s degree, and that’s how I managed to finish my degree in five years rather than six.
ND: How did you arrive at your thesis topic?
JB: When I was thinking about topics, I was thinking that I really like the idea of not-for-profit organisations helping out people who are not so fortunate in the sense that they don’t have the level of safety that we have when we go into a building. It actually originally stemmed from a conversation I had with a person that I was working with where we were essentially saying that fires in informal settlements, or slums, would be something that would be really worthwhile looking into.
And after we broke down the topic and did a little bit of research, we
realised, wow, this is a much bigger thing than we can fit into one thesis. So we focused on one aspect. And it was in the research, essentially, that people were describing these fires as being very similar to bushfires or wildland fires. And so we thought, okay, we’ll take that aspect of it and see if we can better understand that first before we can apply that knowledge to this type of settlement.
So basically, I was looking at what scenarios we have had firefighter fatalities occur, particularly in the 2019-2020 Black Summer fires in Australia. And in looking at what happened in the scenario, what was the probable causation for it, what were the other impacting factors, and what could we have done differently to potentially limit the risk for that happening?
Part of that outcome was that there are parts of the fire landscape that we still just don’t understand, and that we’re continually having to work at to understand how to respond to those circumstances. But also that there are still so many shortfalls currently within our industry that are within our realm of our ability to address.
In Australia, for example, we have different brigade organisations in different states, and often also have separate entities for volunteer firefighters, as opposed to permanent, paid firefighters. As a result, there is
inequality in access to training and resources.
In the 2019-2020 bushfires, we had a mixture of volunteers and permanent firefighters mixed together with firefighters from different countries, including New Zealand and Canada. So it was a mix of people of different backgrounds, different training, and differing levels of knowledge of how to respond to these fires. And then, of course, across the states there were different protocols.
As an example, between different states there are different ways that fire fighters mark trees that are potentially dangerous versus trees marked as habitat for local native animals (koalas, etc). The way of marking what is called a ‘killer tree’, which is a tree that’s at risk of falling and hurting someone, can look the same in one state as the marking for a tree marked as a koala habitat in another state.
So there’s not only that kind of confusion, but also the fact that, during the Black Summer fires, firefighters were having to manage extremely long and repetitive back-to-back shifts, and they’re sleeping out in their trucks, so fatigue becomes a factor. How can you expect people to be operating at their best after such long hours responding to a fire?
ND: What sort of reception are you getting in relation to your research outcomes?
JB: A lot of what my presentation focuses on is the Australian code. One of the fire events I focus on occurred during the 2019-2020 bushfires in which one of the fires was potentially about to impact on an aged care facility that accommodated a number of residents in high needs care that were at relatively high risk.
The fire had been lit by arson in the bushland adjacent to this aged care facility, and the conditions were quite extreme that day. Such circumstances can make it much more difficult to have the time to evacuate people.
They were fortunate enough that day that the fire was blown in another direction. But what if it hadn’t? What if that fire had continued to drive straight toward that aged care facility? What could we be doing to make sure that if people can’t get out, that they’re still going to be safe in that type of environment?
So my research was specifically looking at vulnerable people and the question of how do we address the evacuation of these people when we’re potentially in a dire situation where they can’t get out?
The Australian code, has now brought in some new requirements around the need to design buildings to be able to shelter people during a bushfire in aged care and other facilities. But what we’re seeing is a reluctance to take on these new provisions and, in some instances,
measures being taken to move the building so that they no longer fall within those requirements and therefore don’t have to address them.
We’re basically seeing complete avoidance, which I’m not sure is a better option. I mean, the building’s a bit further away, it’s a little bit safer, but is that really in line with the original intent to be able to shield occupants?
So my presentation is more directed around the challenges for us as engineers in implementing these requirements, because they’re quite stringent, in some cases they’re quite onerous, and they’re something that we’ve never really done before.
Despite bushfires being a really big thing in Australia, there’s not really any formal education around the fire safety engineering of buildings in bushfire prone areas. And because of that, there’s a lack of knowledge all the way from students to professionals. We don’t really have any guides on shielding occupants in these types of structures, because the only other precedent we’ve had before now is the design of Neighbourhood Safer Places
and private bushfire shelters, which are quite different in nature to these more vulnerable structures.
Essentially, the primary reason that regulation was originally introduced around the design of these shelters was because in 2009, in Victoria, we had a very severe fire season, which resulted in a Royal Commission. The response to the Royal Commission highlighted the need for properly designed and regulated shelters because it was made evident that people were attempting to shelter in buildings unfit for this purpose, at times resulting in fatalities. Because of the lack of domestic and international legislation on these types of structures, it was also difficult however, to specify what the benchmark should be for their performance. Currently the National Construction Code has specified the requirements for regulated vulnerable structures based on the same methodology used to design private bushfire shelters and community last resort shelters.
But in reality, there’s a bit of a disconnect between private bushfire
shelters and these more vulnerable building types which makes it difficult to translate the designs directly across. For example, designing a structure that houses many people who are potentially disabled and/or have cardiovascular and respiratory issues is not the same as designing a private bushfire shelter for healthy and generally able-bodied people.
What are the steps we might take to then to merge this gap? What considerations do we need to make that are potentially different to the way we would usually design a building – because usually you’re designing a building to get people out, whereas in this circumstance we’re designing the building to keep them in.
So it’s about how do we maintain the building envelope? How do we make sure that the occupants don’t get overheated inside the building? How do we maintain breathability of the air? It’s almost involves a whole mind shift, and it’s ultimately this type of challenge that drew me into engineering.
Sara Hosseini will be presenting on “Carbon and Cost Analysis of Fire Protection Scenarios for Steel Buildings” at Fire NZ. In this interview with Nicholas Dynon, she introduces her topic and describes her fire engineering journey.
With over a decade of experience in the building industry, Sara Hosseini has honed her expertise in various engineering disciplines, starting out as an architect then becoming a building engineer and facade engineer before transitioning to fire engineering.
She holds a Master of Fire Engineering from the University of Canterbury and has been with WSP for over six years, where she currently works as a Senior Fire Engineer.
“I am passionate on details of building and construction, with a keen focus on fire performance of cladding and building envelopes, states Sara. “I am particularly interested in the interface between structural fire engineering and sustainability, striving to integrate innovative fire safety solutions with environmentally responsible practices.”
Sara’s work is driven by a commitment to enhancing the safety and resilience of buildings while advancing sustainable construction methods.
ND: How did it all start? Where did your journey begin?
SH: For most people the journey starts with an undergraduate degree, but my background is a little different. I was a registered architect in my home country. Some parts of the fire engineering industry requirement were designed by the architect, such as the means of escape and the types of the material that is used in the building, and I was very interested in this aspect.
When I migrated to New Zealand in 2013 I took the opportunity to complete a Master of fire engineering at the University of Canterbury University. I also worked in a company
that is a leader in facade and building envelope in New Zealand. This was during the Christchurch rebuild Christchurch, which gave me a very unique opportunity to work on some landmark commercial building projects in Christchurch and become familiar with the variety building envelope types, especially in the seismic environment.
As an architect, you don’t work directly with the building envelope, and so those three years were a great opportunity to gain familiarity with all the facade systems and the interfacing of the facade system with the structural design, and the fire design in terms of the fire performance of the cladding system.
Nowadays it’s very, very common to have cladding fires on high rise buildings. Grenfell tower was one of the key cases studies that changed the approach and regulation in the UK, and it also impacted on the International Building Code and also in Australia, Dubai, and many other countries.
This drove the introduction of and high demand for new product, although I think that the fire performance of cladding has not been researched or designed at the same speed of developments in the facade and building envelope.
I completed my Master’s degree parttime while working at WSP (formerly Opus), which was a great opportunity. As an architect, I was already familiar with many buildings and had a strong understanding of how to coordinate the various components of a project, such as working with structural engineers and building services.
This role allowed me to apply my architectural knowledge while also drawing on my experience as a facade
engineer, combining these skills with fire performance and fire engineering. As a result, I’ve had the opportunity to conduct numerous cladding assessments across New Zealand and Australia.
One of the major projects I worked on was the Christchurch Convention Centre. It was a double skin building with complex, non-regular geometry, which made it challenging for engineers to fully understand potential fire pathways. This project was a valuable experience and a significant learning curve for me.
I graduated with distinction from Canterbury University, thoroughly enjoying the program. I’ve been with WSP for six years, working on a variety of projects, including commercial buildings, residential developments, hotels, schools, and large-scale multidisciplinary projects.
As a lead fire engineer, I often served as the main point of contact for coordination, and my background in architecture made it easier for me to collaborate with other disciplines. I’ve been in the building industry for over 12 years, with six of those focused on fire engineering.
I have a deep interest in the fire performance of structural systems, especially considering the growing focus on the environmental impact of building fires, which is a critical research area. The building and construction industry faces ongoing criticism for its low productivity, inefficiencies, and substantial contribution to carbon emissions.
The construction sector is responsible for around 40% of global carbon emissions—27% from operational carbon and 13% from materials, construction, and infrastructure. Structural components alone account for 50% to 70% of a building’s carbon emissions. That’s why it’s essential for design teams to collaborate with architects and other disciplines during the conceptual design phase when we can have the most influence on reducing environmental impact. Once a project is underway, making significant changes becomes much harder.
The research I’ve conducted, and the paper I’ll present at the conference, focuses on the carbon and cost analysis of fire protection for steel structures.
I explore various factors, such as the role of fire detection and suppression systems and how they can help reduce a building’s carbon emissions in terms of early detection, interfacing with the fire service operation, contaminated water, replacement of material, replacement of the new structure, and so on.
In my study, I focused on steel buildings and conducted a test using a universal I-beam steel section. I analysed different fire scenarios, including 30, 60, 90, and 120-minute fire ratings. The study compared two types of steel: conventional steel, which has a higher embodied carbon footprint, and a low-carbon alternative.
I also calculated the amount of intumescent fire protection coating required. This coating expands up to 50 times its size when exposed to fire, forming a protective barrier around the steel. This helps prevent the steel from overheating, as its strength dramatically decreases when exposed to high temperatures, potentially leading to building collapse in extreme cases.
The intumescent coating was calculated for various scenarios and steel types. In practice, during the concept design phase, I assess the original structural design and explore ways to optimise it, such as maintaining the same steel weight but adjusting the beam height.
I explored ways to reduce carbon emissions and found it intriguing that the level of fire protection plays a crucial role. For example, adding sprinklers can reduce the required fire rating by 50%. While a 30% reduction in fire rating may not seem significant, it can greatly affect carbon emissions, particularly for 120-minute fire ratings.
I also considered the life cycle analysis of steel structures, which requires looking at the entire process— from production and construction to the building’s lifespan, demolition, and recycling. The circular economy is a key factor when thinking about a building’s lifecycle.
As fire engineers, our influence on the design process is often indirect, as we typically collaborate with architects and other disciplines who drive material choices and design decisions.
However, I believe we can help shape new frameworks, potentially through MBIE or regulations, to encourage fire engineers to be involved earlier in the design process. This would enable us to work more effectively with other disciplines and guide fire performance requirements.
ND : What are the drivers that are motivating industry to consider sustainability in fire engineering? Is it the prospect regulatory requirements? Does it simply make better financial sense to consider sustainability in the design phase? Is it a tough sell to convince people who are making buildings to consider sustainability at that stage?
SH: That’s a very interesting question. Right now, the industry is in the early stages of exploring sustainability in fire engineering, and there’s still a significant gap between research and practical application. While regulatory requirements aren’t fully in place yet, we don’t have a clear framework. However, it’s much easier to address sustainability in the conceptual design phase, and this is where the focus should be.
Sustainability is becoming a critical pathway for all industries, particularly as we face global warming. Since the
construction sector accounts for about 40% of global carbon emissions, it’s vital to prioritize sustainability. Fire engineers have a role to play here. Even though we don’t often lead design decisions, we can still contribute meaningfully by collaborating early in the process to help reduce emissions. Even a modest 3% reduction in both cost and carbon emissions can make a significant difference, especially in large projects. As awareness grows, it will likely make more financial sense to integrate sustainability into the design phase, but right now, it’s still a challenge to push that conversation forward. We need to help the industry understand the long-term benefits, both environmentally and financially, of adopting more sustainable practices.
ND : You’ve mentioned the value of being able to influence things as a fire engineer during the design phase rather than being brought in later in the process. As a fire engineer, do you find yourself being a frustrated architect?
SH: No, my experience is better than that, because I like to see the positive part of it! As fire engineers, we can look to collaborate with architects in a better way, because when the architects ask what is your solution, we typically
provide them with the specifications and regulations.
Some architects may find that frustrating, because although the specifications and regulations are necessary, it doesn’t necessarily help them a great deal in terms of the design solution.
Understanding how architecture, structural engineering, and other components fit together, understanding the language of the other disciplines, and thinking about how our requirements might translate into the design at a high level can perhaps enable us to play a more helpful role.
Given my background, some of this perhaps comes more naturally to me. I am able, for example, to provide an architect with ideas at a very high level that they are then able to translate into a more detailed design in order to find a solution more easily.
Ultimately, it’s a profession I really enjoy. I’ve had a unique opportunity to experience three disciplines in building, and, as a result, filling what I see as a gap in in the sector.
With research still quite ahead of industry, I think we need more regulation, frameworks, and education in relation to sustainability, because this pathway is progressing very, very fast, and it’s important to all of us to keep up with the developments.
Internationally renowned fire practitioner, researcher, and teacher Professor Patrick van Hees recounts his professional journey and talks to Nicholas Dynon about the urgent need for system thinking in fire safety engineering.
Patrick is currently Head of Department for the Department of Building and Environmental Technology at Lund University. He holds a PhD from the University of Gent (Belgium) in wind aided flame spread of floor covering.
In 1995, he moved to SP Fire Technology (now RISE) in Sweden where he started as project manager and became research manager in 2002. In 2007, he moved to Division of Fire Safety Engineering of Lund University in Sweden and became professor of fire safety engineering.
He is also guest professor at the University of Gent in Belgium where he is course responsible for the Fire Performance Based Design course within the International Erasmus Mundus Master of fire safety engineering. He is chair of ISO TC92 SC1 (Fire Initiation and growth) and convenor of ISO TC92 SC1 WG 7, Large and intermediate scale fire test methods.
ND : How did you get into fire engineering?
PVH: I studied civil engineering and started out as an electromechanical engineer with speciality in high power electricity. I did my Master of Civil Engineering with the Fire Lab at the University of Ghent in Belgium and wrote a thesis on fire resistance of insulated pipes.
At the end of my master thesis, I got my degree, and then they needed somebody to start at the Fire Lab there to help with fire testing and fire research. So they asked if I could join them for a short time – they tended to offer temporary contracts of two years – and I said yes. I still had my military service to do, but I thought if I work for two years before going to military service it could be nice to have some money already in my pocket!
But then one of my colleagues left the laboratory and we were a bit short of staff, so the professor said, “Okay,
can I convince you to do a PhD and stay longer?” So I ended up there doing my PhD and then I went to Sweden afterwards. That’s how I got into fire. My original idea, to be honest, was to become maybe an engineer at an electrical power plant somewhere in Belgium. Now, luckily, I’ve been involved a lot in projects with cable fires and functional performance of cables under fire conditions, so I’ve retained a little bit of electricity in what I’ve done so, which is nice given my background in that.
ND: What was your research area for your PhD?
PVH: I looked at the flame spread of floor coverings, mainly in escape routes. Not too many people have worked with floor coverings, except for some people in Australia who’ve worked on it as well as NIST in the US. Specifically, I looked into the possible risks associated with carpets and other floorings in escape ways and their susceptibility to wind-aided flame spread, which results in quick flame spread. We could see in
a number of scenarios that quick flame spread occurred and that the flame properties of floor coverings should be taken into account.
I used the word “wind-aided” when I translated my thesis, but it’s perhaps better described as “co-current” flame spread. This refers to when the flames are in the same direction as the flow of the air – both the smoke and also the cold air is pushed away so that the flames are leaning towards the non-combustible or non-ignited floor covering. This results in a much quicker flame spread, and it is dependent on the conditions in the stairwells, such as open or closed doors, and so on.
I did a little bit of playing with different configurations. Most of the time the cold air will go towards the fire, which results in post-flame-spread, but in certain conditions you can get wind-aided, or co-current, flame spread, resulting in a very quick flame spread in a corridor.
One of my conclusions was that when using floor coverings, whether it’s linoleum, PVC flooring, wooden floors, carpets and so on, one should be
cautious and assess the risk. Of course, in many countries, there are regulations that prohibit combustible flooring or require a very low flame spread floor covering. But I am always a little bit worried when I find myself in hotels with very thick carpets in the escape routes or in the stairwells!
ND: The title of your presentation for the conference is “The urgent need for system thinking in Fire Safety Engineering, from regulations and performance based design to education”. There’s a lot to unpack in that title. Can you break it down?
PVH: Yes, it’s a long title, but it’s a similar title to a keynote lecture I gave at Interflam [14th International Conference and Exhibition on Fire Science and Engineering, London] in 2016. The thing is that for fire safety we see quite often that there is a focus on a specific item, whether it’s the fire resistance of the walls or the doors, the wall linings, etc. But in reality there’s a combination of different materials and products to consider. Take facades for
example, it’s not a single material, it’s a combination; it’s more a system than just a product.
We have the construction product directive in Europe, for example, which is for CE marking of products. But, unfortunately, these products are used as part of a system, and the fire risk is connected to the system, not just the product. It’s the same when we look at the whole building and its combinations of passive and active systems, material choices, and so on. The whole building itself is a type of system, and this system then gets more complex when you consider the
electrical aspects, such as new energy carriers, batteries, and solar panels.
That’s why performance based design is so important in looking at the system as a whole, to look to the different risks, and then to assess it holistically.
And there’s a link to education here. When we educate engineers, we need to give them that broad system view – that it shouldn’t be about a single product.
You can take the holistic view a step further. We should be thinking holistically with respect to fire, but we also could be thinking holistically with respect to buildings in general.
Beyond fire risk, for example, there are humidity problems, there is thermal insulation, but all tend to be considered singularly and in isolation to each other. In Europe, for example, there are lower energy requirements for renovations, so we have to insulate, but then somehow we forget about all the other properties of the building, fire being one of them.
There appears to be increasing recognition that this type of systems thinking is needed. If you consider cables, for example, they are connected in different ways, they are mounted in different ways, and the prescriptive regulation is only testing them in one specific scenario. If you go beyond that scenario, the risk is that you forget the other possible fire risks that present in other scenarios.
ND: So the urgent need for system thinking suggests that there is a distinct lack of it, despite the fact that you’ve observed that there is a real need for it. What has prevented us from taking that holistic approach?
PVH: We tend to think in boxes, unfortunately, and we’ve forgotten to see to the whole. We need to be thinking outside the box a little bit, and understanding that each aspect, each product, each system, can affect one another.
The problem is that we tend to think prescriptively, whereas performance based designs give us the possibility of looking at things as a whole. We need some kind of a cultural change.
In Sweden, we’re moving that way. In the past, we relied on prescriptive rules, but the Swedish regulator is starting to take away these prescriptions and say, okay, it’s up to you to define how you accomplish a safe evacuation, etc.
It’s a bit of a challenge, because you cannot always do advanced performance based designs on a building, particularly on a simpler building. You need to defer to some guidance. So maybe the answer is ultimately a mix of regulations and getting practitioners to think outside the box and focus on more than one item.
28 August saw the launch of a new national radio network that will provide emergency responders with the modern, resilient, secure radio communications technology they need.
A pilot area in South Canterbury consisting of eight digital radio transmission sites is the first component of the Public Safety Network Land Mobile Radio (LMR) network. Emergency services will use this area to test new radios using operational scenarios, which will inform an eleven-region roll-out of the LMR network to emergency services across the country through to 2026.
“The jobs of our first responders - Ambulance Officers, Fire Fighters, and Police Officers are not easy. They go willingly into situations and places that most New Zealanders do not have to go. They put a lot at risk to keep New Zealanders safe,” said Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell.
“Reliable, secure-modern communications are vital to frontline responders. The new Land Mobile Radio network will help coordinate these services, for the safety, wellbeing and prosperity of all New Zealanders.”
The network will be fully encrypted, meaning only emergency services personnel can access transmissions.
“Eliminating outside disruption will be a game-changer for our emergency services, ensuring greater safety of frontline staff and for the security of the information they are sharing,” said Mr Mitchell.
Internal Affairs Minister, Brooke van Velden says the new network will bring benefits for safety, operational efficiency and productivity for fire and emergency personnel as they respond to members of the community in need.
“For the first time in New Zealand’s history, the four emergency services agencies will share the same radio network,” she said. “This will enable greater interoperability between the organisations, bring improved efficiencies and safety for frontline staff – and ultimately, benefit the communities they serve.”
The Public Safety Network is a significant infrastructure project involving the investment of $1.4 billion over 10 years to build and operate the networks and roll out new devices to emergency services staff, stations, and vehicles.
The LMR network is one part of the Public Safety Network being delivered by Next Generation Critical Communications on behalf of Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Wellington Free Ambulance, and Hato Hone St John.
The LMR will sit alongside the second component of the Public Safety Network, Cellular Services. Cellular Roaming (live since July 2023) now has 14,000 emergency services users who can roam across Spark and One NZ networks, and Cellular Priority will be live in late 2024.
The third element of the Public Safety Network involves the modernisation of ‘personal alerting’ technology. This is available to Fire and Emergency NZ and Hato Hone St John, including for use to mobilise their volunteer workforce.
Delivery of the LMR will start in Canterbury, Wellington and Auckland in 2025, followed by the project’s remaining eight regions throughout 2025 and 2026.
A prestigious Australian fellowship will assist University of Technology Sydney Distinguished Professor Guoxiu Wang fireproof the next generation of lithium-ion batteries.
Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries have been powering the green energy transition in electric vehicles and renewable energy storage. The industry is projected to be worth more than $600 billion globally by 2030.
But current battery technology is facing a major obstacle, with the propensity of lithium-ion batteries to catch fire.
A new research program led by Distinguished Professor Guoxiu Wang, Director of the UTS Centre for Clean Energy Technology, aims to put out the fires that have the potential to stall lithium-ion battery uptake.
His research has been awarded almost $4 million in Australian Research Council funding via a fiveyear Industry Laureate Fellowship.
“The current technology is flammable because under certain conditions the liquid electrolyte used in these batteries can combust. This happens when there’s a short circuit or high temperatures during the battery operation process,” Professor Wang said.
“Our team is aiming to solve this problem through new cutting-edge battery technology that replaces the current liquid electrolyte with a nonflammable gel polymer electrolyte.”
“But battery technology is very complicated. There are three main components of a lithium-ion battery – the cathode, anode and electrolyte – and all three work together in a complex system.”
“We need to synchronise the development of new high-performance
customised materials for all three components at once. If we just do the electrolyte itself, it won’t work,” he explained.
Professor Wang’s team has already laid the groundwork to get the balance right between the three types of material. Additional fireproof materials and gels have also been included in their batteries to further improve their safety performance.
The team have demonstrated a proof-of-concept of their groundbreaking batteries in the laboratory.
Professor Wang’s team are partnering with several battery innovation and manufacturing companies to develop the cathode and anode materials and improve the performance of the
batteries, such as their energy density and lifecycle.”
Another industry partner will help manufacture prototype batteries that can then be used in several real-world applications.
“Each of our industry partners will play a different role in developing and commercialising the technology,” he said. “We also have two partners who will adopt our technology and help demonstrate its effectiveness.”
“At the end of the day, we want to build up the sovereign battery manufacturing capability in Australia: that’s our ultimate objective,” Professor Wang said.
“If we can manufacture better batteries – batteries with improved performance, energy density and safety features – then we can power up electric vehicle use and renewable energy storage.”
UL Solutions helps smoke detector and smoke alarm manufacturers in China and East Asia by testing innovative technologies that can help advance fire safety as new requirements take effect.
UL Solutions announced on 30 September that it has expanded its smoke detection device sensitivity testing to its laboratory in Suzhou, China, enhancing in-region accessibility to testing and efficiency in product research and development, and helping address new certification requirements that can help advance fire safety.
At the Suzhou facility, UL Solutions can now test smoke detection devices according to various sensitivity test requirements of UL 268, the Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, and UL 217, the Standard for Smoke Alarms.
The UL 268 and UL 217 Standards were updated to help mitigate cooking nuisance alarms while also addressing the smoke from fires originating in today’s home and commercial environments. These changes in standards necessitated new technologies in modern smoke alarms and detectors.
“It is essential to have correctly installed and functioning smoke alarms or detectors where we live, work, learn and play,” said Karine Johnfroe, vice president and general manager of the Built Environment group at UL Solutions. “Our investment in expanding smoke detection device testing in China supports our mission of working for a safer world and helps our global customers innovate with confidence.”
“Nuisance alarms, commonly caused by cooking, can sometimes
result in consumers removing the battery, creating considerable fire safety risks in the event of an actual fire,” explained Dwayne Sloan, technical director of the Built Environment group at UL Solutions.
“The fire science community found ways to help address this challenge through new testing and certification requirements. Manufacturers are responding to these Standards changes with innovations to address nuisance alarms that are now incorporated into new smoke detection products. With our newly expanded smoke detection device sensitivity testing capabilites, UL Solutions can now assess these innovative technologies in Suzhou.”
By expanding its testing in Suzhou, UL Solutions provides a pathway for manufacturers to demonstrate initial product performance regarding smoke sensitivity response, which is a critical aspect of technology application and product development.
Smoke detection manufacturers in China and East Asia supply a significant portion of smoke alarms and detectors sold in North America and other markets. Suzhou is now the second location globally where UL Solutions offers smoke detection sensitivity testing.
UL Solutions conducts testing and certification of smoke detection devices at its headquarters in Northbrook, Illinois, United States.
A report released in late September locates the origin location of the February 2024 Christchurch vegetation fire, but fails to identify the cause.
A fire investigation report into the Port Hills fire, which started on 14 February 2024, has located a specific origin area on private property but the cause of the fire remains undetermined.
“Investigators were unable to identify a specific ignition source,” said District Commander Dave Stackhouse. As the cause of the fire cannot be proven to an acceptable level of certainty, it is classified as undetermined. However, if further information becomes available, the investigation will be reopened.”
District Commander Stackhouse says an examination of the scene identified a specific origin area of approximately five square metres, on private property about 50 metres off the side of Worsleys Road.
“The owner of the property where the fire originated cooperated with the investigation and advised that there had been no activity or equipment used on the day the fire started,” he said.
“Our legal advice is that, due to privacy reasons, Fire and Emergency is unable to release the specific origin area of the fire because it is on private property,” he said.
“Our investigation into the cause of the fire included three experienced wildfire investigators working alongside the New Zealand Police and who arrived in Christchurch the day after the fire started.
“They interviewed three witnesses who were in the vicinity of the fire when it started and were the first to report the fire to 111. They assessed photos and videos of the early stages of the fire which were sent in by the public or captured on CCTV,” he said.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia/Commons
“In the lead up to the fire, Canterbury was experiencing a warm, dry summer, combined with dry vegetation across the District. These conditions assisted in the ignition and spread of the fire.”
The fire occurred near Worsleys Road on the Christchurch Port Hills, burning through approximately 650 hectares and destroying a residential structure and various infrastructure, including causing some damage to the Christchurch Adventure Park.
The fire burnt across the Port Hills for three weeks and involved firefighters from across Canterbury, multiple aircraft and ground machinery, a large number of support and incident management personnel, and Fire and Emergency’s specialist drone team.
“Fire and Emergency extends its thanks to the many volunteers and staff who worked long hours to contain and extinguish the Port Hills fire,” said District Commander Stackhouse.
“We also want to acknowledge and thank partner agencies for their support throughout the response and the Port Hills residents and Christchurch community for their cooperation.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteers and staff were presented with Royal Honours by Governor General Dame Cindy Kiro at Government House in Wellington on 11 September.
Peter (Ralph) Fegan: Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit (ONZM)
Mr Fegan volunteered with Franz Josef Volunteer Fire Brigade for 22 years before joining the Wānaka Brigade, where he has served 17 years. He was Chief Fire Officer in Franz Josef from 1977 to 1996, initiating the formation of a Rural Fire Party, and has been Secretary since 2013 at the Wānaka Brigade.
He has been involved with the United Fire Brigade Association as President of the Central Otago Fire Brigades Sub-Association from 2021 to 2023 and became Senior Vice President of the Otago/Southland Gold Star Association in 2023. He was previously a Westland District Councillor from 1989 to 1995 and a civil defence controller for Franz Josef from 1979 to 1995.
Glenn Teal: Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit (MNZM)
Mr Glenn Teal has been Chief Fire Officer of the Auckland Operational Support Unit (OSU) since 2010, having joined the preceding Auckland Volunteer Fire Police Corps in 1979.
The Auckland Operational Support Unit (OSU) comprises 60 volunteer members and provides 24/7 support to Fire and Emergency New Zealand personnel and other emergency services across Auckland. Mr Teal’s leadership has ensured the seamless operation of the unit across the wide and diverse Super City region. He helped formulate Fire and Emergency’s first comprehensive basic training and progression system for Operational Support personnel in 2011, still in use today.
He was on the committee which instigated a national standard for Fire and Emergency’s Operational Support personnel apparel. He established an Observer Programme to drive recruitment, introducing potential recruits to the unit’s in-field activities. He led projects to upgrade the unit’s standalone radio network, refurbish OSU premises, and replace brigade vehicles in 2023. He mobilised OSU resources to directly assist following the 2010 Christchurch earthquake and during the 2019 Marlborough wildfires. He oversaw measures to ensure the Auckland OSU could continue to provide full support during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ian Campbell: King’s Service Medal (KSM)
Mr Ian Campbell has been a member of the Te Awamutu Volunteer Fire Brigade since 1982. He has been Chief Fire Office of the brigade since 2007, overseeing the busiest volunteer brigade in the Waikato region with more than 400 callouts annually and more than 40 volunteer members.
He has worked to transition the brigade to become more modern and dynamic and formalised volunteer pathways within the brigade, developing a safety-culture based ethos for officers and practicing manaaki. He led the fundraising of $54,000 for the purchase of hydraulic rescue equipment in 2009 and $41,000 for a new emergency response vehicle in 2016.
In 2014, he led a team to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with St John to assist with medical emergencies with a purpose-built vehicle. He chaired centennial celebrations of the brigade in 2013, which included events and station enhancements.
Arthur (Greg) Imms: King’s Service Medal (KSM)
Mr Greg Imms has been a member of the Kerikeri Volunteer Fire Brigade since 1968 and rose through the ranks to become 3rd Officer. Over more than 50 years of service Mr Imms has had a 92 percent attendance rate at callouts. From 2008 to 2013 he was Acting Deputy Chief Fire Officer, helping guide the Brigade during a transitional period.
In his early years of service he gave his time to help build the Brigade through the acquisition of second hand equipment. He has been made an Honorary Life Member of the Brigade. Mr Imms has also supported St John Ambulance in Kerikeri, helping with difficult patient extrications at crash sites and resuscitations for cardiac arrest ambulance callouts.
Mr Glenn Williams served with the Mount Maunganui Volunteer Fire Brigade from 1981 to 1993 and since 1993 with Te Puke Volunteer Fire Brigade.
Mr Williams has been Chief Fire Officer of Te Puke Brigade since 2006 and is a Life Member. He provided insight from the volunteer perspective as an Integration Advisor for the transition from the New Zealand Fire Service to Fire and Emergency New Zealand from 2018 to 2020.
He became a Director of the United Fire Brigades Association (UFBA) in 2011, attaining several leadership roles until being appointed President in 2018 and subsequently a Life Member in 2019. He was engaged with the UFBA’s involvement in the development and consultation phases of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act, helping shape the framework.
Other King’s Service Medal recipients for services to Fire & Emergency New Zealand were Robert Webb, Lance Berry, and Brian Carter.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is seeking feedback on a range of options to increase the uptake of remote inspections and improve efficiency and productivity in the building inspection process.
“We know that the building and construction sector suffers from a lack of innovation,” said Chris Penk, Minister for Building and Construction, in a 2nd October media release. “According to a recent report, productivity levels have remained unchanged since 1985, which is staggering given technological advancements since that time.”
The minister cites the building consent system as the key obstacle for improving productivity, stating that it is complex, unpredictable, and costly. In most instances, he says, obtaining a Code Compliance Certificate relies on a council officer physically inspecting building work on-site to check it complies with the building consent.
“Builders must book inspections in advance and, if the inspection does not go ahead at the expected time, the building work grinds to a halt,” he explained.
“In some parts of the country, like the Mackenzie District, there is only one building inspector who must travel long distances to sites. In other parts
of the country inspectors spend long periods of time in congested traffic.
According to MBIE, conducting inspections remotely may reduce delays associated with on-site inspections, lower costs, and lift efficiency by:
• eliminating the need to travel to site, allowing inspectors to conduct more inspections per day
• increasing flexibility in the workday of inspectors and building professionals
• enabling inspectors to carry out inspections in other regions.
Remote inspections are already being used by some Building Consent Authorities, however, uptake is low and practices vary across the country.
“There will be some situations where on-site inspections are still needed, for example due to complex construction, lack of internet coverage or where physical testing is needed,” said the minister.
“However, in many cases remote inspections may be better than traditional on-site inspections as they allow for more accurate record keeping
of the build process, which current and future homeowners can refer to.
MBIE is seeking feedback on options which include:
• requiring building consent authorities to use remote inspections as the default approach
• requiring building consent authorities to have the systems and capability to conduct remote inspections
• non-regulatory initiatives to lift inspection productivity
• creating a new offence to deter deceptive behaviour during a remote inspection and give building consent authorities more confidence to inspect remotely.
The consultation also seeks feedback on increasing the use of Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections. These are private organisations that can be accredited under the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 and can process building consent applications on behalf of building consent authorities.
“We want to hear feedback from the public to ensure we find a solution that provides homeowners and buyers with assurance about the quality and safety of buildings, while also delivering important efficiencies.,” said the minister.
The public consultation will run until 29 November 2024
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/have-yoursay/consultation-on-increasing-the-useof-remote-inspections-in-the-buildingconsent-process
•Low power consumption - low operating temperature
•One product suits floor and wall mounting
•Universal armature - offsets to 55º to suit doors opening past 90º • Wall mount extensions available •12 & 24 VDC selectable • Push off button with no residual magnetism • Oversize armature for easy alignment • Emergency release button
•Electroless nickel plated armature and electromagnet
•Stainless fastenings • Full local support and back up
10 YEAR GUARANTEE*
Designed, tested and produced in New Zealand to AS4178
A)Wall mounted,126mm extn. tube (overall 202mm) B)Wall mounted, 156mm extn. tube (overall 232mm) C)Wall
Surface and Recess mounting
This device enhances an outstanding range of unbreakable products which conveniently hold open fire doors. When a smoke/fire alarm is activated the magnet instantly releases the door to the closed position to prevent the spread of smoke and fire. These units feature a choice of 3 covers for optimum aesthetic appeal and durability. The installer can utilise one device for surface mounting or for recess mounting.
YEAR GUARANTEE
