A fire for scientific and logistics purposes: GSE places its General Contractor expertise at the service of Flumilog.
GSE light the fire !
An 860-m˛ warehouse was deliberately set on fire on Friday 26 September 2008 in Rouvroy-les-Merles (Oise - France) on the site of the future European Environmental and Safety Technology Research Center (CERTES). The occasion was the large-scale fire test to validate the reference calculation method for thermal effects and for evaluating distances affected by a warehouse fire.
The test took place within the scope of the Flumilog project. Flumilog comes from FLUx eMItted by a LOGistics platform fire. The Flumilog project focuses on a common approach to environmental protection and the prevention of risk, and includes several partners: French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks (INERIS), the French Prevention and Protection Centre (CNPP), the Steel Construction Industrial Technical Centre (CTICM), the French Steel Construction Syndicate (SCMF), the ArcelorMittal metallurgy group, the French Logistics Association (Afilog) and the GSE Engineering company, creator of the General Contractor business, which has contributed its expertise in the construction of logistics platforms.
The Flumilog project partners seek to define a method to serve as the national reference, validated by all the parties concerned, and operational regardless of the specificities of the logistics platforms and products stored.
Precise knowledge on the impact of the thermal flux during a fire is required to better control risk of fire, adapt the infrastructures, adjust the thermal screens and determine the safety distances around the facilities. So far, each individual design office had its own formula for calculating the effects from the flames’ heat. Of course, progress had been made with computer simulations, but great uncertainty persisted. Life-size experiments had not been conducted. In fall of 2007, the Flumilog group of professionals started a series of mid-scale tests on a 100-m˛ building. This provided greater understanding of the influence from various fuels. On Friday, 26 September, a full-scale test was conducted on an 860-m˛ building, with 12.5 m clearance height – all of which duplicates the conditions of one warehouse compartment.
The building consisted of a steel frame with steel cladding on three sides. The fourth, eastern elevation was a gypsum board firewall which, according to the regulations had to have 2-hour fire resistance. Inside the warehouse were 260 tons of wood on pallets or in boxes stored on the racks. This accounted for 80% occupancy of the storage volume. 200 thermocouples measured the temperature changes, and 40 fluxmeters measured thermal flux. A dozen cameras inside and outside the building filmed the fire development and the behaviour of the structural elements.
Testimonials
“This test has given us a more realistic approach to the reality of a warehouse fire”, stated Stanislas Grassien, Project Director at the GSE R&D Department, on the site. “The building plays the role of a wrapper. We see that this type of building slowly fall, like here, in 20 to 25 minutes time it collapses inward and tends to lower the height of the flames. Even at the peak point of the fire, the flames did not exceed twice the height of the building – subject of course to closer analysis of the video images. The flames faded rapidly once the building collapsed. At any rate, maximum intensity was not very long – about 5 to 6 minutes. In terms of safety, this also gives us a more realistic view of the effects of a fire we are seeking to contain. And, the firewall in the adjacent cell unit – which was simulated here – held up well and played its fire separation role. Indeed, thanks to these separating cells, chain failure of the building was avoided. The fire was restricted to a single cell and did not spread to the adjacent cell structure. The building collapsed as we foresaw it would – that is, inward collapse and not outwards, which is important for firefighter safety and for the safety of the adjacent buildings.”
Jean-Claude Bossez, President d’AFILOG, emphasizes the relation between risk prevention, sustainable development and the prospects for the logistics industry. “This test was extremely important. It enables to scientifically ascertain the elements we require to reassure investors, builders, logistics loaders and providers, that their buildings are built with state-of-the-art materials which provide all the safety guarantees everyone is looking for. This should also reassure the administrative bodies, the towns and the neighbors of the logistics sites.”
The test took place within the scope of the Flumilog project. Flumilog comes from FLUx eMItted by a LOGistics platform fire. The Flumilog project focuses on a common approach to environmental protection and the prevention of risk, and includes several partners: French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks (INERIS), the French Prevention and Protection Centre (CNPP), the Steel Construction Industrial Technical Centre (CTICM), the French Steel Construction Syndicate (SCMF), the ArcelorMittal metallurgy group, the French Logistics Association (Afilog) and the GSE Engineering company, creator of the General Contractor business, which has contributed its expertise in the construction of logistics platforms. 
The building consisted of a steel frame with steel cladding on three sides. The fourth, eastern elevation was a gypsum board firewall which, according to the regulations had to have 2-hour fire resistance. Inside the warehouse were 260 tons of wood on pallets or in boxes stored on the racks. This accounted for 80% occupancy of the storage volume. 200 thermocouples measured the temperature changes, and 40 fluxmeters measured thermal flux. A dozen cameras inside and outside the building filmed the fire development and the behaviour of the structural elements.
“This test has given us a more realistic approach to the reality of a warehouse fire”, stated Stanislas Grassien, Project Director at the GSE R&D Department, on the site. “The building plays the role of a wrapper. We see that this type of building slowly fall, like here, in 20 to 25 minutes time it collapses inward and tends to lower the height of the flames. Even at the peak point of the fire, the flames did not exceed twice the height of the building – subject of course to closer analysis of the video images. The flames faded rapidly once the building collapsed. At any rate, maximum intensity was not very long – about 5 to 6 minutes. In terms of safety, this also gives us a more realistic view of the effects of a fire we are seeking to contain. And, the firewall in the adjacent cell unit – which was simulated here – held up well and played its fire separation role. Indeed, thanks to these separating cells, chain failure of the building was avoided. The fire was restricted to a single cell and did not spread to the adjacent cell structure. The building collapsed as we foresaw it would – that is, inward collapse and not outwards, which is important for firefighter safety and for the safety of the adjacent buildings.”