Search results

The proposed use of unlatched, reverse swing flappy doors is becoming widespread in the design of residential common corridor smoke control systems. This article explores the conceptual arguments for and against the use of these systems.

This article relies on industry experience, with reference to relevant building design practices, standards and research literature, to categorise arguments. These are collated into four common areas of concern relating to compartmentation, reliability, depressurisation and modelling practices. A final comparison is made between different common corridor smoke control system types for these four areas.

The article highlights several concerns around the use of flappy door systems, including the enforced breaches in stair compartmentation, uncertainties around system reliability, the reliance on door closers as a single point of failure, the impact of day-to-day building use on the system performance and the false confidence that modelling assessments can provide in demonstrating adequacy. The article concludes in suggesting that alternative smoke control options be considered in place of flappy door systems.

Discussion on the use of flappy door smoke control systems has been ongoing within the fire engineering community for several years, but there is limited public literature available on the topic. By collating the common arguments relating to these systems into a single article, a better understanding of their benefits and pitfalls has been provided for consideration by building design and construction professionals.

The paper's aim is to report and comment on two preliminary issues that arose from claims being pursued by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) against Abbey National Treasury Services (ANTS) and NDF Administration Ltd (NDF).

The paper outlines the facts and explains the decision.

The FSCS commenced action against ANTS as assignee of the assigned claims and alleged that ANTS had collaborated with NDF in product development and promotion of the Structured Capital at Risk Products and was liable in negligence and misrepresentation to the investors whose claims it held as assignee. Having considered the arguments, the Judge concluded that FSA did have power to make rules enabling FSCS to take assignment of investor claims.

The issues in this case go to the heart of the funding mechanism of the FSCS. The financing of such compensation schemes is a perennially controversial issue in every jurisdiction that has them.