SubscribeA common misconception is that architects are primarily concerned with the creation of beautiful spaces and aesthetically stunning buildings.
Of course this is an integral part of their work however in the design of complex structures like airports, much consideration also revolves around the operational aspects of the building. Architects need to understand the detail functionality and liaison with airport operators and airlines is essential if airports are to be safe and disasters prevented.
What is the nature of an airport environment? Fundamentally it is a processing facility, a transport interchange. But it is also a vibrant community and has even been described as a small city with offices, churches, shops, leisure facilities and more. Operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, often with no safe time. An airport is more than just a passenger terminal. It is also a constantly changing environment and despite 9/11, still an expanding and developing one.
While the airport operational principles are universal, the context, constraints and detail requirements vary with size, environment and culture and so therefore must the solutions. The highest priority must be given to safety but in their role as an interchange airports must also be functionally efficient, in an increasingly commercial world operators need them to be profitable and from a passenger perspective they have to be comfortable and provide a hassle-free, enjoyable experience.
Fire safety means both people safety, ensuring they are not at risk, and property protection – nobody likes seeing their multi-million pound facility go up in smoke! Much current focus is place on combating emergencies when they arise but the job of an architect is to prevent the event in the first place and to achieve this through good design. Safety should be integral to the design process from the outset.
There are two main fire strategy approaches, code compliance and fire engineering. Both have several threads in common - containment, means of escape provision and fire fighting facilities. The differences come in the method of application of these principles. The code compliant approach is based upon common sense principles and the use of simple systems. In contrast, the fire-engineered method relies on detailed analysis and simulation – the calculation of fire loads, assessing how smoke travels and simulating how long an evacuation might take. It requires more detailed understanding combined with sophisticated detection and control systems producing a more complex solution with an inherent, greater reliance on technology.
In the first instance I would advocate the code compliant approach for any building, as simple solutions have a reduced reliance on extensive management and maintenance regimes and are intrinsically inclined to “fail safe”. However, with a large, complex building, like an airport, there is sometimes no choice but to adopt a more sophisticated fire engineered approach, as it is the only way of coping with their sheer scale. But even here it pays to keep this approach as user-friendly as possible. A recent incident at a UK airport saw fire department personnel arriving and turning off the smoke extract system because they did not understand the purpose of its operation. It should have been left running but the available system information was so complicated and hard to understand that the presumption was simply made that something needed to be switched off.
Airports of course, as has already been mentioned, are not just terminals; there are a plethora of other specialist facilities with specialist requirements that need to be considered. Air Traffic Control Towers, for example, raise their own problems through their height, having only a single staircase and housing operations that are crucial to aviation safety. Hangars, as well, contain aircraft that are often more valuable than the buildings themselves and with the presence of volatile aviation fuel pose their own special problems.
What should be developed from the outset of any airport development is a fire strategy. This strategy must encompass 7 key facets:
Compartmentalisation
This defines how the building is split into fire zones. In smaller buildings, a single compartment would suffice and is indeed desirable, however in the context of airports this only suits for small single storey terminals. In most airports multiple compartments are more applicable. It is usual to split first by horizontal separations between floors, secondly between operational and public areas and finally by process stage, most usually along the air/land boundary.
Means of Escape
Absolutely crucial in large and complex buildings and often understated, it is not always apparent to a visitor who only spends a short time within the airport where the emergency exits are. In a visually congested and busy environment exit portals must be defined and signage, orientation and wayfinding considered from an early stage. During an escape situation a traveller’s natural reaction is to retrace their steps to a place of remembered safety, but subject to what stage they are in the process this is not usually possible. When the escaping occupants leave a public area he must be contained along a protected route for the duration of their escape. This is protection not just from fire but other possible dangers such as manoeuvring vehicles or even aircraft if they end up airside. Other important considerations are the calculation of occupancy figures, travel distances and escape route widths.
Evacuation Strategy
Generally in a small building the principle to follow is one out, everyone out, but this is not practical in large airports where phased evacuation is a more appropriate solution. Evacuation from one compartment to another is the most effective way to achieve this. But more sophisticated fire alarm systems and higher-level management training are essential to avoid passenger confusion and ensure safety.
Alarms
Here there are 2 approaches; automatic or managed, and within these there are 2 types, sounder/bell/claxon or voice-activated and there is ongoing debate as to their relative merits. Embracing the most effective approach relies on determining the nature of a particular airport’s operation and especially the profile of the passengers. A business traveller can react differently to a leisure traveller, as would those from varying cultural backgrounds. In consultation with fire officers, they have described how some passengers on hearing an alarm will carry on shopping until they see smoke or flames, while others are very responsive. On the other hand voice activated systems might not be particularly appropriate in an airport, which is a maelstrom of international diversity.
Fire Fighting Systems & Access
There obviously must be adequate and easily available localised fire fighting systems such as extinguishers and fire blankets so that members of staff, when appropriate can tackle small fires. The provision of facilities for the fire department, such as hose reels, needs to be considered at an only stage. Automated systems, like sprinklers, and more complex facilities such as smoke control measures can have a significant influence on the design and spatial form of internal spaces.
As crucial as the systems is the understanding of the fire department, which deal with the emergencies. As architects it is imperative we engage in early consultation with relevant fire departments. At small airports the responsibility is likely to fall upon local fire departments, which while aware of the airport will be infrequent visitors and almost certainly not specialists, thus probably determining a lower level, simpler approach. At larger airports there will be dedicated fire departments trained specifically in particular risks with specialist equipment. We must understand the fire department’s nature, their strengths and weaknesses.
Construction Logistics
Undertaking construction work in any public building represents a major risk that should not be underestimated. The major fire at Dusseldorf airport, for example, was caused by small hot works ongoing at the airport that were not checked properly. Within the dynamic airport environment any construction project could have a major impact on the fire strategy for the building to the point where the viability of a project could be threatened and its implementation and phasing will certainly be influenced. In addition, thought must be given to the operatives charged with carrying out any construction work and a separate fire strategy may be required for the project itself.
Consultation
A recurring theme throughout this that cannot be overstated is the need for consultation with the large number of bodies involved in the smooth operation of an airport. From terminal management to fire departments to airport safety advisors, talking is crucial to ensure the design team understands the issues and criteria involved and indeed to ensure that the relevant parties understand the management and operational implications of the project. Although there may be some correlation across airports, each will have their own particular variances and thus particular solutions.
Current Issues
The budget airline market has long been established in the States and is now a growth area in Europe. Budget airlines are looking for low cost facilities, with very different requirements to the usual scheduled carriers. Here architects need to understand their desire for a rapid turnaround of both aircraft and passengers. Travellers will often be herded and held longer in confined gate lounges and with the tendency to reduce staffing levels it is essential that training is sufficient.
Although Boeing is not going ahead with its plans for New Generation Large Aircraft, the new Airbus A380 has been ordered by 8 airlines with delivery imminent. The key consideration to take here is that there will be far larger numbers of passengers on one aircraft, which means a greater concentration of departing passengers in gate rooms and an increase in arriving passengers through immigration and baggage areas. New designs of facilities have to cope with this influx and particular attention has to be paid to safety and escape routes.
Finally, there are at times conflicting desires to ensure the building is not only safe as a building but also safe from a security perspective. The airside/landside boundary is especially sensitive and it would be inappropriate for any evacuation to go from landside to airside, from a ‘dirty’ to ‘clean’ environment, where confusion could be created by the mix of screened and unscreened passengers and domestic and international travellers
When all is said and done the key to unlocking and designing a successful fire strategy comes early in the design process with an extensive consultative process and the establishment of a tailor-made but ultimately simple solution with minimum inconvenience to the public. The primary objective is to get the passengers onto their airplanes safely and efficiently while ensuring that they have a comfortable and enjoyable passage through the airport.
Notes:
Andrew Leckenby is Director of the Airport Group at international architectural practice REID architecture.They are a framework partner of BAA and have over 12 years airport design capability working across a broad spectrum of aviation projects for both airport operators and airlines throughout the UK and abroad. Their project experience includes airport master planning, terminal development projects, security including Hold Baggage Screening, passenger processing, support accommodation and cargo facilities and currently they are working on their award winning designs for Farnborough Airport, home of the world famous airshow. Their approach is based on a thorough understanding of the airport environment and establishing a close working relationship with our clients and their customers.
For further information please contact: Andrew Leckenby, Director.
Tel: +44 20 7297 5600
Fax: +44 20 7297 5601
E-mail: Andrew.leckenby@ra-lond.com
Website: www.reidarchitecture.com
