A good idea? "Skyscrapers need faster exits"

[Weird Harold]

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2002/leicester_2002/2251169.stm

Skyscrapers need faster exits
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff in Leicester


Tall buildings in the UK may have to be licensed in the future to ensure they can be evacuated within a set time period.
Football and other sports stadia in Britain already face annual safety inspections and have to show they can get everyone out quickly.

Engineers meeting at the British Association's science festival in Leicester said that after the events of 11 September serious consideration was now being given to introducing a similar certification process for all tall and large buildings in the UK.

The way people are evacuated from skyscrapers could also change, they said, with greater emphasis placed on the use of lifts in addition to using emergency stairs.

...

On the surface, the idea that skyscrapers should have a fire safety certification seems to be a good idea, but is it really feasible to create and enforce any kind of realistic standard on existing buildings?

The article mentions increased reliance on lifts (elevators) but for that to be a safe option, the buildings would require a refit with more fire-proof elevator shafts. Studies of the WTC collapse mechanism showed that even the fire-proof shafts in the WTC towers were death traps because of "chimney effect."

What would you suggest to make evacuation of skyscrapers faster, safer, and more reliable?

 

[peachykeen]

have discussed this with my architect husband many times. He's got lots of idea but it being midnight and all I couldn't possibly try to form them into any sort of coherent sentences.

 

[Saint Peter]

On the surface, the idea that skyscrapers should have a fire safety certification seems to be a good idea, but is it really feasible to create and enforce any kind of realistic standard on existing buildings?

The article mentions increased reliance on lifts (elevators) but for that to be a safe option, the buildings would require a refit with more fire-proof elevator shafts. Studies of the WTC collapse mechanism showed that even the fire-proof shafts in the WTC towers were death traps because of "chimney effect."

What would you suggest to make evacuation of skyscrapers faster, safer, and more reliable?

The shafts were not engineered to meet the fire/heat potential of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. If the fires were "typical" the shafts would have preformed fine.

 

[Weird Harold]

The shafts were not engineered to meet the fire/heat potential of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. If the fires were "typical" the shafts would have preformed fine.

That may be true, but the article sort of implies that the brits are leaning towards "9/11 proofing" their tall buildings by developing better evacuation methods. I'm not sure that any building can be made "9/11 proof" or even truly "fire-proof."

I'm certainly in favor of changing building codes for new construction to require building in better evacuation options than 70+ flights of stairs.

Some Deep Sea Oil Platforms have "escape chutes" similar to the inflatable slides on airliners except they're tubes that hang straight down and control the rate of descent.

Something like that might work for tall buildings.

 

[Saint Peter]

A person might be able to provide escape with the use of ropes/replelling gear. A harmness kept in a closet and a tie-off might save your life.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

That may be true, but the article sort of implies that the brits are leaning towards "9/11 proofing" their tall buildings by developing better evacuation methods. I'm not sure that any building can be made "9/11 proof" or even truly "fire-proof."

I'm certainly in favor of changing building codes for new construction to require building in better evacuation options than 70+ flights of stairs.

Some Deep Sea Oil Platforms have "escape chutes" similar to the inflatable slides on airliners except they're tubes that hang straight down and control the rate of descent.

Something like that might work for tall buildings.

That's what I was thinking. Yes, if a building is 70 feet tall, a person will gain speed as they go down the chute, but I'm sure there are ways to cushion the landing or to add friction so that the person doesn't move quite as fast.

 

[Laurel]

What would you suggest to make evacuation of skyscrapers faster, safer, and more reliable?

Water slides.

 

[Lost Cause]

Low profile....

They shouldn't be any taller than the longest fire ladder/basket. If you want more space, bury it! I prefer manageable height and liberal use of terracing with trees and foliage. I like open spaces.
The WTC site at the very center, should be left in place, create a park/memorial, and build moderate structures surrounding it completely. perhaps build a glass dome over the open area.

If you try to 9-11 proof buildings, the madmen will find a way around it. For 110 story buildings, issue one BASE jumping chute per occupant!

 

[Guest]

Pardon my ignorance but.....

I have no formal training in civil engineering nor fire-safety rescue but why could a tall structure, one obviously beyond hook-and-ladder range, not be fitted with 'rescue' compartments designed to let occupants survive the hazards of heat and smoke associated with hi-rise fires. Is it so beyond our capability not to make these pods be cabable of lowering themselves on a dedicated escape system of interior shafts or exterior rails or have the ability of rising to a roof area for helicopter extraction......
Mind this comes from someone who pushed heavy things out of aircraft while in the military, I personally think we have the knowhow, it's just not been a priority.....

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Low profile....

They shouldn't be any taller than the longest fire ladder/basket. If you want more space, bury it! ....

If you try to 9-11 proof buildings, the madmen will find a way around it. For 110 story buildings, issue one BASE jumping chute per occupant!

I thought of parachutes, but I don't think they'd be all that practical. One person base jumping from a building isn't much of a problem -- several thousand people (who don't know how to control a base jumping chute) jumping at the same time is just providing them with a pre-attached shroud.

OK, let's sink all those tall buildings into the ground so only the top ten stories are above ground. How do we get people out of them in an emergency -- fire, flood, toxic fumes, etc -- especially since now they have to climb those 70+ stairways?

How about we chop them into ten story sections and set the sections all side by side and make them into short, fat buildings? How do you get 10,000 people or so out in an emergency (and get rescue/fire people in to the emergency)?

Laurel, I kind of like the waterslide idea. Well, mayber not water slides, but inflatable aircraft type slides in the stairwells With an inflatable bumper at the bottom of each flight to keep people from bruising the walls.

 

[Weird Harold]

A person might be able to provide escape with the use of ropes/replelling gear. A harmness kept in a closet and a tie-off might save your life.

Any idea how to make that idea practical for a mass of people who don't have any experience or even know what the word "Rapel" means?

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Pardon my ignorance but.....

fitted with 'rescue' compartments designed to let occupants survive the hazards of heat and smoke associated with hi-rise fires. Is it so beyond our capability not to make these pods be cabable of lowering themselves on a dedicated escape system of interior shafts or exterior rails or have the ability of rising to a roof area for helicopter extraction......

Sort of a "lifeboat" or "escape pod" setup? I think it's probably a technically feasible idea and one of the better suggestions so far.

If you combined it with the "base-jumping chutes" suggestion and turned it into something like the F-111's ejection pod you could even eliminate the need for tracks or shafts.

 

[Secret Kate]

 

[Azwed]

Re: Re: Pardon my ignorance but.....

Sort of a "lifeboat" or "escape pod" setup? I think it's probably a technically feasible idea and one of the better suggestions so far.

If you combined it with the "base-jumping chutes" suggestion and turned it into something like the F-111's ejection pod you could even eliminate the need for tracks or shafts.

I have always wondered why more aircraft did not have the F-111's pod capability. It was a great idea I thought. Was their some kind of design or engineering flaw that kept it from catching on or was it too just too expensive?

 

[Coolville]

I read that there was one man who worked in the WTC, a Brit, who kept a parachute by his desk. Fortunately for him, he wasn't at work that morning.

 

[Coolville]

In the 70's a number of high buildings went up in Copenhagen. After three were built, the residents of the city protested and a referendum was called. The result was a limit on height of new buildings.

Although this was an aesthetic reason. The new buildings didn't look (don't look still) at all good on the old skyline dating from the 16th century.

 

[Weird Harold]

I have always wondered why more aircraft did not have the F-111's pod capability. It was a great idea I thought. Was their some kind of design or engineering flaw that kept it from catching on or was it too just too expensive?

Too expensive, too heavy, and too complicated. It works well enough, but individual ejection seats are more versatile and easier to engineer -- the same ejection seat design can be used in almost any type of aircraft, but ejection pods have to be engineered in the the basic design and are specific to each aircraft design. Ejection pods are also not very amenable to upgrading -- you can rip out a Martin Baker Mark IV seat and replace it with a Mark MMII seat without making major modifications to the basic airframe.

Secret Kate,
Making fire drills fun isn't really the point, but I guess it would improve participation if they were fun.

 

[Azwed]

I can see how all of those reasons would be serious problems for the ejection pod.

You could have naked fire drills to make things more fun or maybe stage a big office party outside or in the lobby with tons of beer and liquor after the fire drill.

 

[TWB]

I would like to see some portable slides for such exit. A 110 story slide would be cool.

 

[*bratcat*]

Re: Re: A good idea? "Skyscrapers need faster exits"

 

[Weird Harold]

I would like to see some portable slides for such exit. A 110 story slide would be cool.

I think a single slide of 110 stories would result in some serious rug-burn y the time you got to the bottom -- if it didn't, you'd reach the bottom doing about 110 MPH!

Why couldn't portable (or inflatible) slides go to adjacent buildings instead of all the way to the ground? Even cable slides would work between buildings -- just fire a cable from one building to a lower floor of the next building and slide down it on something like handcuffs. That would avoid the problem of excess speed generated by sliding all the way to the ground

 

[patient1]

I once read about trying to engineer a tornado proof home. Their conclusion was that it was impractical, that the answer was to build a "safety closset" where the family could ride it out.

I guess I favor the escape pod concept. It could probably double as a waiting room. At least rescue workers would know where to look in an emergency.

As much as I like the waterslide idea,and a slide could be spiraled to help control speed, if that water ever got got hot, or had burning fuel floating on it