Bei unserer Beschäftigung with building regulations and fire protection we will always disadvantage "modern" architecture established by a conservative construction law. To this still the cost of the building not to lose sight of the early cooperation with as "Modern" fire guards is essential. Architect and fire fighters must take on GE-together the challenge of convincing and innovative solutions for demanding total solutions and balanced fire protection design, the fin on.
An example of the unequal treatment of traditional and modern architecture, the demands on the supporting structure in terms of fire resistance, "Missiles in the roof space."
Starting from the correct premise that persons not in a burning top floor can be brought through the fire resistance of supporting construc-tions, but only on safe and easily accessible escape routes to safety as determined by § 27 model building code (MBauO) that the requirements the resistance to fire (eg fire-resistant building for the building class 5) for "supporting and reinforcing walls and columns" in "storeys (s) in the roof space" does not apply if it does not stay rooms are available (top floor).
An outdated building law is self-evident from the fact that traditionally the top floor of a Building a conventional roof - gable roof, hipped roof, hip roof, etc. - is.
Sophisticated and modern architecture with flat roofs or Staffelge-shot as the top floor "enjoy" is not the relief under § 27 the conservative building law.
bearing parts of "top" storey modern building - floors under a flat roof and top storey, possibly even missiles under a pent-roof - must be recognized in the building code requirements is absurd on the fire resistance of structures.
This means in each case a significant added economic burden, which no gain in security for the Inhabitants of the projectile-se facing.
It appears here as in many other cases of reasonable and cost-effective solutions to security only with modern concepts of fire protection can be achieved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment