Home > Photos, Videos & Media > HS - Big car park fire in Liverpool. Land Rover started it. |
|
|
Scottyav Member Since: 11 Feb 2013 Location: Cannock Staffordshire Posts: 1204 |
Maybe a 4-4 petrol with a leaky fuel pipe or lpg fail but would be interesting whose it was if anyone's FB groups or so forth shed a light. _____________________________________________________
|
||
1st Jan 2018 2:07pm |
|
alanm_3 Member Since: 19 Feb 2011 Location: my House, unless I’m not at home, in which case I’m somewhere else. Posts: 6734 |
Funny how people’s perception of cars is very different.
|
||
1st Jan 2018 2:11pm |
|
rodp Member Since: 09 Apr 2017 Location: The Black Country Posts: 318 |
Unnecessary quote removed
|
||
1st Jan 2018 4:33pm |
|
Mikeyjd Member Since: 14 Jun 2011 Location: Wrexham Posts: 543 |
The report states there were no sprinklers. As a firefighter, I can definitely say that sprinklers would have reduced the size of the fire massively by cooling the surrounding cars. The fire would not have spread so quickly allowing firefighters on the scene to get closer to the initial fire. Fire engines are equipped with foam which can be mixed with the water sprayed onto the fire.
|
||
1st Jan 2018 5:48pm |
|
GGDR Member Since: 26 Nov 2016 Location: London Posts: 3545 |
Geez it's burnt right through the concrete floor. All the rebar's exposed!
|
||||
1st Jan 2018 7:30pm |
|
Red Merle Member Since: 19 Sep 2016 Location: Cornwall Posts: 2158 |
Thank you Mikey for the helpful explanation. |
||
1st Jan 2018 7:50pm |
|
wack61 Member Since: 17 Nov 2017 Location: Cheshire Posts: 104 |
I thought all these car parks were covered by CCTV , if somebody had grabbed a fire extinguisher rather than a camera phone then maybe it wouldn't have been so bad. |
||
2nd Jan 2018 10:58am |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
I've just been shot down on another site
|
||
2nd Jan 2018 2:25pm |
|
dolph34 Member Since: 14 Sep 2015 Location: Kildare Posts: 1724 |
Maybe the FBH was on hot !!!!! 2015 4.4 AB
|
||
2nd Jan 2018 2:36pm |
|
PaulTyrer Member Since: 22 Jul 2013 Location: Devizes, Wiltshire Posts: 1254 |
I've just been reading a section of the IStructE Design recommendations for multi-storey and underground car parks, and this is interesting. Quote: 'Recent research into the growth and spread of fires in closed car parks revealed that there is a risk of fire spreading from car to car, particularly where there is a lack of natural ventilation to the open air or where there is no mechanical extraction system. Many new cars are constructed of a mix of components that often include synthetic materials. Some modern cars have all-plastic bodywork. Experiments indicate that the danger of spread of flame from a burning vehicle to adjacent vehicles is quite low with steel-bodied motor cars, although tests have not been carried out with plastics-bodied vehicles (see Figs. 7.1 & 7.2). When there is ample cross-ventilation, the fire exposure from a burning car is not intense. In such cases, sprinkler protection may be of assistance in containing a fire. However, the value of sprinklers to steel-bodied vehicles is greatly reduced, as the source of the fire may be shielded from sprinkler heads. While the sprinklers may be ineffective in controlling a fire inside a car, they do reduce the risk of fire developing in rubbish and spreading to a wider area. There is also evidence to show that, in split-level car park areas, smoke and flames will travel underneath vehicles (see Fig. 7.3) parked at a higher level, thus further reducing the value of sprinkler protection.' Here's a link. http://masseguridadvial.com/FILES/Underground_Carparks_EN.pdf |
||
2nd Jan 2018 3:06pm |
|
nicedayforit Member Since: 11 Jun 2011 Location: Beside the Solway Posts: 3978 |
I do recall when I dealt with multi-storey car parks in the past there was not Building Regulation requirement for sprinklers only natural ventilation, mechanical ventilation or a combination of the two bearing in mind natural ventilation is ineffective if there is no wind. I have a feeling that the Regulations are about to be updated to include sprinklers if they haven't already.
|
||
2nd Jan 2018 3:56pm |
|
miggit Member Since: 12 Jul 2014 Location: Milton Keynes Posts: 3657 |
"Experiments indicate that the danger of spread of flame from a burning vehicle to adjacent vehicles is quite low "
|
||
2nd Jan 2018 4:29pm |
|
bembo449 Member Since: 26 Jul 2017 Location: lincolnshire Posts: 803 |
your right there miggit ! you get the venture effect which sucks in even more flowing fresh air and like Grenfell , woof ! up it goes like a rocket unfortunately |
||
2nd Jan 2018 8:06pm |
|
Grofus Member Since: 24 Mar 2017 Location: Co Clare Posts: 577 |
As a retired fireman, I can tell you that sprinklers would have significantly reduced the spread of fire. As Mikeyjd said, it would have allowed attending crews to get closer to the seat of fire. But this would have taken around 20 mins after the fire being reported. Say 10 mins for them to arrive and another 10 before they could get the water where it needs to be. Not easy to get water up 3 floors up unless it has a wet or dry riser fitted. Looking at the photos it was still a fairly small fire when first discovered, but it seems the fire crews had lost the battle before they arrived. Shows how fast it had spread. Sprinklers would have contained the fire for long enough to make a big difference to the outcome. Maybe no more than a dozen cars lost. Even a foam or dry powder extinguisher would have put that out when first discovered.
|
||
2nd Jan 2018 8:23pm |
|
|
All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis