Geoff Merryweather

From: Geoff Merryweather <geoff@anvilfireconsultants.co.nz>

Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2016 11:58 a.m.
To: 'Ben Ferguson'; 'Geoff Merryweather'; 'Richard Pan'
Cc: 'Etienne Hermouet'; 'Geoff Wicks'; 'Michael Sullivan'
Subject: RE: NZICC fire report comments

Ben,
Thank you for your reply. I am very concerned as to the quality of the design and documentation received at this
late stage. This is a long way off being a design I can sign off and I will not accept a design that has so many
fundamental errors and basic mistakes. If you disagree, you do of course have the option of applying for a
Determination.
The design, which has been formally signed and signed off by NDY staff, contains a number of ongoing and
fundamental errors, such as fan controls, openings, detection, grid size, lack of data points and a significant lack of
compliance with the NZBC performance objectives. I note that it has not been signed off by a CPEng Chartered
Engineer who is the person taking the personal, technical and legal liability for the design, and hence I assume
should be approving it before issue.
Some of these have been brought to your attention in our previous correspondence and meetings however they do
not appear to have been addressed in your revised documentation. I have listed some of the more serious
deficiencies below however it is not the responsibility of the peer reviewer to analyse the data. I relied on the data
in your report, which I was formally issued to me for review.
Your email clarifies that the report was incomplete and incorrect, despite being signed off by NDY, and that you
have revised the modelling since so the results and report did not match your most recent FDS files. On receipt of
your latest emails, and on realisation that that your report and modelling varied from them, I noted that you did not
include any output files. I have run the pyrosim files I received and undertaken a brief analysis of the outputs. This is
normally not the role of the peer reviewer but in the absence of any output files I was left with no other option.
On running the FDS files further deficiencies in your design input and output have become evident. I have also
undertaken to modify your input files (providing slice files, data points, variations in fire size and etc) so as to know
what answers to expect from your revised design and the likely solutions for a design that complies with the NZBC,
which your current design clearly does not.
On this basis I do not accept your previous email arguments, especially with the variance in the modelling inputs and
results.
Examples include
1. The example of the heat release rate in my previous email (below), where the carpark fire was slower than a
slow fire was from the results that you provided to demonstrate the north stair was clear. This is the results
and conclusion that you provided me to review (rev 4) so I assume it had been through your QA process and
as you had signed it off, that you approved it.

1
 2. Another example, the plenary has the fans running from time t=0, rather than on alarm activation
plus polling delay, or an alternative scenario if the plenary has smoke detection isolation to allow for stage
smoke. The report also suggests a verification delay will be used on smoke detection activation, so this
would also need to be taken into account. Your report and model does not assess visibility on the escape
route as required to demonstrate compliance. Despite the fans running before the fire was detected, it
appears that visibility is lost before the rows and room is cleared as below. As you haven’t provided any
evacuation models despite having done them some time ago, I haven’t been able to assess the accuracy of
your ASET figures or the validity of the inputs. These are not stated and items such as aisle and door widths
are fundamental to movement times. Irrespective of this, the design in the report states it loses visibility,
contrary to the NZBC performance criteria for the occupancy and hence the design does not comply with the
NZBC

2
3. A similar comment applies to other areas in the building with exhaust systems.
4. There is a hole in a carpark model that does not appear to relate to the building plans. As the code is not
documented it only has the description of “hole” which is not very helpful. It is not the door. The FDS code is
to be fully and correctly documented as per Auckland Council Policy.
5. You rely on doorways to transfer air between smoke zones, or from the outside of the building. What is the
effect if there are people using the door? There are some ASHRAE papers which detail this very subject.
6. The carpark has a D*/Dx of 2-3, which is inadequate. Hint - look at the FDS runtime parameters and the time
interval of interest and you will see why and how this is an issue. The 500mm grid is also very coarse for
assessing the effects in a small stairwell. Refer to current FDS guidance on grid size (which I previously
provided for your information). D*/dx is no longer considered by itself a sufficient basis for grid size,
certainly at such a coarse resolution.
7. The Grid used for the steel beam assessment is very coarse (250mm). I would expect a sensitivity analysis,
especially for such a small model. I cut the grid to ¼ and it shows a difference. A smaller fire area with a
more realistic heat release rate also appears to make a significant difference with higher temperatures.
8. Incorrect detection devices used. Detection needs to match expected detection types, as there are
differences in response times, spacing, etc.
9. Slice files do not have adequate resolution to shown the details in tight locations. While the slice file
information can be exported to a text file, you don’t have control over where the points are. You need to
include data points in critical areas.
10. Carparks have large beams that affect the smoke flow, and hence the fire locations by channelling flow. This
may affect the stair scenarios and fire location details.
11. In the report there is no occupancy in the carparks listed. Are these an unoccupied space? There is also no
door open / close time for the carparks listed.
12. The carpark tenability model does not assess all stairs as the model only has a single stair. I assume L2 has 2
stairs, otherwise you will also need to demonstrate how 64 people can use a single means of escape and
comply with the NZBC…
13. Why would the structural fire heat release rate and evacuation heat release growth rates vary significantly?

3
 14. As noted before. Allowing no premovement times allowed in some scenarios is extremely optimistic based
on real fires and published literature.
15. The statement to say that everything within 30m of the fire is “local to the fire” for the evacuation
modelling, citing that this is the default value (which can be changed) of FDS does not have any relevance to
human behaviour, consideration of sight lines and banners or displays, etc. I will not accept this, or other
visual identification of a fire, as a basis for notification of the fire unless supported by a comprehensive
argument based on peer reviewed published research and I will not accept this
16. Heat release rates do not match realistic fire scenarios – e.g. a HRRPUA of 166kW/m2 is used.
17. As the FDS model outputs is critical to the structural response, Charles Clifton will need to comment on the
carpark steel FDS model. As a Chartered Engineer he is responsible for working with in his area of
competency in making this judgement.
18. The grid meshing is inefficient for the solver in some models and if you used controls for some operations
rather than a manually entered operation time, you may reduce the number of runs, however these are a
decision for NDY.
19. The carpark uses OH sprinkler spacing, and while I have no issues with this in a specific design, you will need
to note in the FER and fire protection spec that extended coverage heads cannot be used in this area or
other areas where OH spacing is used. You also have assumed QR heads in areas that would not normally
have them, such as the carpark. These will need to be clearly specified in the report (which is not currently
the case) and FP spec. Unless they are specified, they won’t be used as they cost more and are less common.
20. Some models only look at the conditions in the room. What happens to the smoke spreading to other areas
through the open doors – especially where visibility throughout the rest of the firecell is a criteria?

Despite the Fire Report being signed off by Ben Ferguson there extent of the errors and omissions are widespread
and shall impact significantly on the design outcome. Your QA procedures appear to be remiss and with this in
mind, and to avoid timely email exchanges I will require the sign off of a NZ CPEng engineer prior to reviewing any
further design information from NDY.

Geoff Merryweather

Geoff Merryweather
BE(mech) MBA MEFE CPeng(Fire),IntPE MIPENZ MSFPE
Anvil Fire Consultants Ltd
Hauroko Farm, 47 Flay Road RD3 Drury 2579
Ph 022-3853874 / 09-2948068
geoff@anvilfireconsultants.co.nz

From: Ben Ferguson [mailto:b.ferguson@ndy.com]

Sent: Thursday, 21 April 2016 6:06 p.m.
To: Geoff Merryweather <geoff@anvilfireconsultants.co.nz>; Richard Pan <R.Pan@ndy.com>
Cc: Etienne Hermouet <E.Hermouet@ndy.com>; 'Geoff Wicks' <Geoff.Wicks@beca.com>
Subject: RE: NZICC fire report comments

Geoff

I am not sure the tone of your email is warranted and do not wish to get into an email exchange. Our QA
procedures are robust. The specific design you mentioned was for the structural analysis (incipient phase has no
material impact and it is suitable for that assessment) however in relation to the smoke modelling that you
4
requested, the revised Pyrosim file we sent to you on a CD this week uses a different fire growth rate for the analysis
of smoke spread into the stairs. It was based on the BRANZ single car fire as per FS3 in our FER capped upon
sprinkler activation. The resultant HRR vs time is as follows. There is no incipient stage, growth rate is between
medium and fast. For this specific assessment in a sprinklered car park, we believe this to be a relevant design basis.

We are working hard to address your comments and have turned around our response to your latest comments
quickly, as we would all like to close out those points to enable us to finalise the FER so you can formally review it.

Regards

Ben Ferguson MIEAust CPEng NER RBP RPEQ BPBC10

Director
NORMAN DISNEY & YOUNG 115 Batman Street, West Melbourne, VIC 3003, Australia
T +61 3 9862 6800 | D +61 3 9862 6889 | M +61 421 053 884 | F +61 3 9862 6900
E b.ferguson@ndy.com | www.ndy.com

This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged in which case neither is intended to be waived or lost by mistaken delivery to you.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. Copyright NDY Group. All rights reserved.
NDY Management Pty Limited trading as Norman Disney & Young (ABN 29 003 234 571)
NDY promotes a sustainable environment. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

5
From: Geoff Merryweather [mailto:geoff@anvilfireconsultants.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 21 April 2016 3:06 PM
To: Richard Pan
Cc: Ben Ferguson; Etienne Hermouet; 'Geoff Wicks'
Subject: RE: NZICC fire report comments

You might want to do some QA before you send the results next time. As below, this is not a carpark fire, it is a
smouldering fire – a slightly unrealistic scenario where it involves a structural fire heating steel or alarm activation
and smoke spread.
It appears there has been a lack of QA throughout this project from the very beginning.
Don’t bother sending anything to me until you have checked it, and I want to see a signature of the NZ manager
confirming QA has been done. I will hold them responsible for the project quality.

Due to the poor quality, this is eating up the project review budget and any additional time will be charged.

6
Geoff Merryweather
BE(mech) MBA MEFE CPeng(Fire),IntPE MIPENZ MSFPE
Anvil Fire Consultants Ltd
Hauroko Farm, 47 Flay Road RD3 Drury 2579
Ph 022-3853874 / 09-2948068
geoff@anvilfireconsultants.co.nz

From: Richard Pan [mailto:R.Pan@ndy.com]

Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2016 6:16 p.m.
To: geoff@anvilfireconsultants.co.nz
Cc: Ben Ferguson <b.ferguson@ndy.com>; Etienne Hermouet <E.Hermouet@ndy.com>
Subject: RE: NZICC fire report comments

Hi Geoff

Below are our response to the comments you provided on 12th April. Please kindly review, thanks.

General Comments

1. Comments from structural peer reviewer We will follow up with the structural peer reviewer.
2. Items raised last year We have addressed most of the items raised in September last
year.

Regarding the loss of visibility in areas:

Using the average visibility that occupants see when they look
down the aisle from the top tier, we can achieve ASET > RSET with
a small margin if the skyfold opens up after alarm activation. Refer
to the Pyrosim files for details.

We have communicated this new fire safety requirement to the

design team and will follow up with them for comments.
3. Design fire for L5 meeting room The medium fire for the meeting room was accepted in the FEB.
It is noted that the meeting room is similar to an office (medium
t2) with no furniture such as sofas.
4. Pressure differential This is a design requirement under the Alternative Solution which
complies with AS/NZS1668.1.
5. 17.2.6 Please refer to comments for (2)
6. Detector activation threshold Based on the results of our FDS models the smoke measured by
the detectors would increase rapidly, i.e. generally less than 3
seconds from 0 %obs/m to 15% obs/m. As such the sensitivity is
not critical to the outcome.
7. Pre-movement time The time from the ignition of the fire to the time when people in
the fire origin commence movement is examined below:

Currently in our FER, the total delay to the movement of people in

the fire origin is the detection time (based on smoke detector
activation) plus alarm verification time (30 s).

Alternatively, we could adopt a total delay based on visual

detection of the fire in a focus activity area plus pre-movement
time (30 s).

The difference between the two delays are virtually indifferent,

hence we don’t expect it to change the outcome of our analysis.

7
8. Definition for local to the fire
9. Fire scenario F01b
10. Sketch notes
11. Occupancy split in spine
12. FLED for equivalent fire severity
13. Size of car fire
14. structural fire assessment
15. columns in structural fire assessment
16. deformation of slab
17. Temperature measurement
18. Comflor system
19. Acceptable solution
20. Requirement for doors
For large spaces, we will define areas within 30 m radius of the
fire as “local to the fire” subject to occupants having clear line of
sight.
30 m is based on the max visibility supported by FDS.
The sensitivity scenario F01b will be included in the FER to check if
the FED would be less than 0.3 should the smoke curtain fail to
operate.
However there will be no need to include the base case F01a.
The note has been removed from our sketches. Fire rating is to be
2 way to walls and riser.
The case we modelled, i.e. everyone in the hall and no one in the
spine is expected to produce worse RSET than an occupancy split
scenario, as it results in people being further away from an exit
and more queuing.
Noted, FER updated to reflect 800 MJ/m2
Based on the car fire used, the maximum steel temperature,
average temperature and average temperature of the adjacent
steel beam were calculated to be 530C, 200C and 50C
respectively.
The temperature input for the slab panel method that we
recommended to the structural engineer (Table 23) were 900C,
550C and 400C respectively, which are very conservative and
provide a reasonable level of robustness to account for a larger
car fire.
Further, note in Appendix F the three temperatures calculated for
the storage fire were 850C, 600C and 280C respectively. The
storage fire scenario has a similar floor to steel beam distance but
it is a much bigger fire with fast t-square growth rate to 25MW; it
would be significantly larger than a car fire.
Based on the above we believe our analysis is robust and a
remodel of the car park fire is not warranted as it is not expected
to change the outcome.
The chosen fire location was agreed with the structural peer
reviewer at the time of the FEB.
The columns will be protected and this has been coordinated with
the structural engineer.
The temperatures above the fire, along the beams and around the
fire have been given as inputs to the structural engineer for their
design calculations. Where fire walls or safe paths are above a
slab, the beams are to be protected.
The gas temperature was calculated by FDS. The temperature as a
function of time was then input into a spreadsheet to calculate
the steel/concrete temperatures via convection.
I am in the progress of confirming the location of steel
reinforcement in
the Comflor system and the temperature adopted by the
structural engineer for their slab panel calculations.
Updated in the FER
We will update the FER to show, by exception, requirements for
any unusual doors. Otherwise, the FER covers the door
requirements and exit paths and these have been coordinated
with the architects and services engineer.
8
21. Beams in car park models
22. Final review
23. Handrail requirement
24. 6.5.2
25. Requirement for panic bars
26. AS1668 detection system
27. CS smoke detectors
28. installed system for fire models
29. glass insulation
30. boiler room requirement
31. Temperature used for concrete and steel
32. Visual detection of smoke
33. Carpark levels modelled
34. Pathfinder data files
FDS Comments
1. Material type is wrong
For the analysis of connection of rising and descending stair
flights, we consider it to be more conservative to assume no
beams in the carpark. Such that the smoke is able to spread more
readily and into the stairway.
Noted, a package will be issued to you comprising the FER,
architectural drawing set and structural drawing set
The architect has advices that the handrails comply.
Sections updated in the FER
Panic bar requirements were stated in the FER (revision 4 section
6.6.2). These requirements will be clarified.
The AS1668.1 smoke detection has been removed from the FER.
Noted
The inlet air locations have changed several times in the past, and
we’ve had to remodel (F02, F03 and a few others) as a result of it.
The make up air modifications are not sufficient to require
additional re-modelling as there is generally the same amount of
opening in the same regions of the building.
No glass insulation is required (-/120/-)
The mechanical engineer has confirmed that the boiler room has
been designed to be compliant, however access is not directly
from the outside. Lobbies have been provided.
Temperatures reached by the concrete and steel based on the
maximum gas temperature were also calculated and provided to
the structural engineer to facilitate their design.
This was conservative as it was assumed that the entire length of
the steel beam/entire area of the concrete slab was heated by the
maximum gas temperature at a single point immediately above
the fire.
It is expected that people would become aware of a fire
emergency when they see smoke above their heads, regardless of
their location.
The stair shaft has now been modelled, please refer to the
Pyrosim file.
A car fire in Level 2 has been modelled as this carpark is only half
the size of the other car park levels. The smoke entering into the
stairway under this fire scenario is considered to be worse than
the smoke due to a fire in a bigger volume (i.e. multiple level car
park)
Will also provide Pathfinder files.
We have investigated this and found the impact of the materials to be
negligible based on gypsum/concrete compared to inert. Revised
modelling is not required.
9
2. HRRPUA is not valid
3. No spreading fires leads to
incorrect detector activation
4. Controls not correct
5. Incorrect yields used
6. Detectors have to match
detection type used
7. FDS files need to be documented
and obstructions etc correctly
labelled, clean up code etc
8. Models are incomplete
9. Look at the heat release rate vs
time
10. Inlet air areas incorrect
The D*/Dx formula is below. We cannot see how the HRRPUA would
directly affect it.
Under the alternative solution, it is ok to deviate from the HRRPUA
required by the verification method.
For the same sized fire I would expect the fire with bigger fuel area to
generally produce more smoke than a fire with smaller fuel area, due to so
we are not being less conservative.
Fire spread is considered in the model based on the pre-defined growth
rate. In the early stages of the fire growth (i.e. for detector activation), the
fire areas is small and the modelled fire size is appropriate. We have
conducted a sensitivity assessment and detection time increases with
larger fires and therefore the modelled detection is conservative. Revised
modelling is not required.
Strictly the smoke exhaust fans should all activate 30 seconds later to
account for the alarm verification time, however based on the results of
the smoke exhaust in FDS, we don’t expect the ASET results will be that
much different.
Other than the plenary and L4 meeting room, we have enough margin in
the ASET/RSET comparison to allow the loss of a few seconds in ASET.
We do not believe that additional modelling is warranted as it will not
change the analysis conclusions.
Yields are as per the agreed FEB.
We propose to add a section in the FER to explain/compare the
performance of point type detectors versus beam type detectors, rather
than remodelling.
The FDS text file is difficult to read by itself. However the devices,
ventilation, obstructions etc are grouped in the Pyrosim files which will
facilitate your review. You should receive the Pyrosim files on a CD shortly.
It is unrealistic to model every detail of the building. Some simplifications,
(e.g. the omission of obstruction for internal fixings and inconsequential
geometry) are insignificant with respect to the size of the spine and as
such are not expected to significantly alter the smoke movement.
We have compared the input and output HRR vs time curve and they
match. There are relatively more fluctuations with the L5 meeting room
fire however that is expected as the door to the meeting room may not
provide sufficient make up air as the fire size grows bigger.
Are there any other issues with the HRR vs time?
The inlet air locations have changed several times in the past, and we’ve
had to remodel (F02, F03 and a few others) as a result of it.
10

11. Mesh boundary needs to be
clear of outside wall for inlet air to
allow for edge effects
12. FS06 has no obstructions.
13. Slice files
The make up air modifications are not sufficient to require additional re-
modelling as there is generally the same amount of opening in the same
regions of the building.
Whilst old CFD models and version of FDS required this, the FDS user
manual confirms that one can have openings directly on the boundary but
should consider moving them in if the flow through the opening is
important. In our models the air through the opening is not directly
blowing across the fire; it enters the modelled space at a relatively low
velocity (<3m/s). The model therefore is compliant.
Hall 1 was originally modelled as part of the whole building however there
was no smoke spread from Hall 1 to the other parts. When FS06 needed to
be remodelled the other parts of the building were omitted from the
model to reduce the running time.
Data points have been provided to the plenary. However data points are
considered to be not required for other models as there is sufficient
margin the ASET/RSET to provide the necessary level of confidence.

Best regards

Richard Pan RBP EF

Fire Safety Engineer
NORMAN DISNEY & YOUNG 115 Batman Street, West Melbourne, VIC 3003, Australia
T +61 3 9862 6800 | D +61 3 9862 6861 | F +61 3 9862 6900
E r.pan@ndy.com | www.ndy.com

This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged in which case neither is intended to be waived or lost by mistaken delivery to you.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. Copyright NDY Group. All rights reserved.
NDY Management Pty Limited trading as Norman Disney & Young (ABN 29 003 234 571)
NDY promotes a sustainable environment. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

11