Computational fire engineering - do we have what we need?

This presentation will attempt to address the issue of whether the engineering design community has the knowledge, data and tool sets required to undertake advanced evacuation analysis. In discussing this issue I want to draw on examples not only from the building industry but more widely from where ever people come into contact with an environment fashioned by man. Prescriptive design regulations the world over suggest that if we follow a particular set of essentially configurational regulations concerning travel distances, number of exits, exit widths, etc it should be possible to evacuate a structure within a pre-defined acceptable amount of time. In the U.K. for public buildings this turns out to be 2.5 minutes, internationally in the aviation industry this is 90 seconds, in the UK rail industry this is 90 seconds and the international standard adopted by the maritime industry is 60 minutes. The difficulties and short comings of this approach are well known and so I will not repeat them here, save to say that this approach is usually littered with “magic numbers” that do not stand up to scrutiny. As we are focusing on human behaviour issues, it is also worth noting that more generally, the approach fails to take into account how people actually behave, preferring to adopt an engineer’s view of what people should do in order to make their design work. Examples of the failure of this approach are legion and include the; Manchester Boeing 737 fire, Kings Cross underground station fire, Piper Alpha oil platform explosion, Ladbroke Grove Rail crash and fire, Mont Blanc tunnel fire, Scandinavian Star ferry fire and the Station Nightclub fire.

Law in the community: the University of Greenwich/Greenwich Association of Disabled People Centre for Independent Living (GAD) research project

The GAD Advocacy Service is funded by the London Borough of Greenwich Directorate of Neighbourhood Services; its remit to support disabled people experiencing Hate Crime, Domestic Violence and Harassment. Run by disabled personnel and giving advice to all disabled people it is unique in London. Since its inception in 2004, the Advocacy Service has been stretched to its limit - there is a need to extend the remit of the Advocacy Service to give specialist legal advice on other issues. In 2003, the CEDRM-UK project was set up in the University of Greenwich Law Department as part of the Disability Rights Promotion International Legal Education and Research Project; its objectives were firstly, to facilitate the collection of data on the effectiveness of legislation in promoting the rights of disabled persons; and secondly, to pilot new methods in teaching and training in Human Rights Law – students acquire an expertise in Human Rights Law through research into the practical application of legislation relating to civil and human rights in the daily life of the community. In July 2007, GAD and CEDRM-UK embarked on a joint project to report on the work of the Advocacy Service and to create a database to support its caseload. The 2008-9 Project team will report on their work and findings relating to facilitating equality in the workplace; the inclusion of cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis within the legal definition of disability and the implications of the statutory duty to promote disability equality for the provision of extracurricular activities for schoolchildren. [From the Author]