Engineers TV

As a member of Engineers Ireland you have access to Engineers TV, which contains over 700 presentations, technical lectures, courses and seminar recordings as well as events and awards footage and interviews.

The European Union is seeking to limit growing threats from blazes through the use of satellites, artificial intelligence and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Picture the following scene on the French island of Corsica: a local fire service uses a special surveillance camera to detect smoke in the area, quickly declares the outbreak of a blaze and mobilises a targeted response.

No, the action in the Biguglia municipality on Corsica’s northeastern coast wasn’t one of the many wildfire emergencies in Europe in 2023. Rather, it was a demonstration in October 2022 under an EU-funded research project to help regions in Europe counter threats from wildfires.

Researchers and firefighters are joining forces to counter wildfire threats. Image: European Union, Copernicus Sentinel-3 imagery.

Teaming up

The Biguglia exercise used a smoke bomb to simulate the start of a fire and an extensive data network to trigger the rapid-reaction steps. It involved a service that has 1,300 firefighters who protect a population in this part of Corsica – the Mediterranean’s fourth-biggest island – that grows to about 400,000 in summer.

"This first demonstration on Corsica was very positive," says Michael Pelissier, a firefighter who participated in the test.

As part of the EU project, called SAFERS, a similar firefighting exercise took place in the Piedmont region of Italy in February 2023 and two more trials are planned in Greece and Spain towards the end of this year.

"After the next two demonstrations, we would like to push the management system forward in Europe and also beyond," says Claudio Rossi, who coordinates the project and is a senior researcher at an Italian research and innovation centre called the Links Foundation in the city of Turin.

With the help of EU funding, Europe’s research community is joining forces with firefighters to prevent fires from spreading or from happening at all. SAFERS is one of several EU projects to combine resources and know-how for tackling wildfires on the continent.

Satellite support

The focus of SAFERS is primarily on the use of satellites and artificial intelligence (AI), to provide information that could help save lives and contain environmental damage.

"The orchestrated utilisation of AI-powered solutions can increase resilience to forest fires," says Rossi.

Running for three-and-a-half years through March 2024, the project features weather and hazard maps, fire-detection techniques, input from the general public and other tools to help local authorities prepare for any wildfire emergencies.

 
'AI-powered solutions can increase resilience to forest fires.' Claudio Rossi, SAFERS

 

The ultimate goal is to build on the demonstrations in France, Greece, Italy and Spain and develop a comprehensive wildfire-control system for use around Europe.

By combining satellite images and other data, the system is intended to give first responders, decision-makers and ordinary people a clearer view of what’s happening and to facilitate the best responses.

Earth-observation data from the EU’s Copernicus programme is the primary source of information. This would be combined with data collected from smoke detectors, mobile applications, social media and forecast models.

Present threat

A stark reminder that wildfires pose a growing threat in Europe came from news images in July 2023 of tourists fleeing flames on the Greek island of Rhodes and blazes spreading near the Sicilian city of Palermo.

A month later, attention turned to Spain and Portugal where blazes destroyed more than 16,300 hectares of land and forced the evacuation of villages and tourist accommodations.

The Biguglia municipality on Corsica was chosen as a SAFERS demonstration site in part because of a major fire there in 2017.

"These last years we have noticed that, notably because of global warming, the summer season has a tendency to expand," says Pelissier, the firefighter. "So we are increasingly threatened by forest fires."

The EU, which recently doubled its firefighting fleet of aircraft, has deployed more than 10 planes, 500 firefighters and 100 vehicles to help control and quell wildfires in Greece alone during the summer of 2023.

Over the past two months, the EU has also mobilised such support for Cyprus and – outside Europe – Tunisia. The moves were closely coordinated with national authorities.

Hotspot training

Another EU-funded project – TREEADS – plans to feature drones, high-altitude balloons and satellites in a Europe-wide protection system.

 
'We need to train our communities before the fires happen.' Kemal Sarp Asarva, TREEADS

 

"We can’t only invest in fire trucks, helicopters or planes – we need to train our communities before the fires happen," says Kemal Sarp Arsava, who coordinates the project.

Arsava is a senior research scientist at Norway-based RISE Fire Research, which specialises in fire safety.

TREEADS aims to establish a comprehensive fire-management platform covering all three stages of wildfires – before, during and after a blaze breaks out.

Arsava is a native of Turkey who has also worked and studied in the US.

While in the US in late 2019, he was reminded of the international dimension of the wildfires threat by noticing the effect of Australia’s major outbreak of bushfires at the time.

Based then in the state of New Hampshire, Arsava said the blazes caused a slight haze in North America while primarily hurting air quality in South America. 

"The smoke from all of the wildfires in Australia basically crossed the Pacific Ocean and even changed the colour of the sky in America," he says.

Drones and balloons

TREEADS began in December 2021 and is due to run until end-May 2025.

The initiative brings together research institutes and companies from 14 European countries and Taiwan.

Besides Norway and Taiwan, the participants are from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Spain and Sweden.

The team of researchers is developing new technologies that’ll be tested in eight countries represented in the project.

One plan is to use drones and high-altitude balloons to detect blazes early, collect data for fire crews and even aid their actions by dropping fire-suppressant materials.

A four-layer approach is foreseen: low-altitude drones to locate fire hotspots; mid-altitude drones to drop fire suppressants; high-altitude balloons to provide a broader view; and satellites for the whole picture.

The trials are due to start early next year.

The project is also testing a virtual-reality headset to train firefighters who aren’t typically assigned to dealing with wildfires. That means teaching city firefighters to deal with blazes in different terrains should the need arise.

In total, more than 26 technologies including for fire protection and suppression will be enhanced, developed and verified in TREEADS.

"These new technologies will make it easier to fight wildfires in the future," says Arsava.

At the coalface: To tackle wildfires, European researchers team up with frontline forces

The Engineers Journal is publishing a number of abstracts from the final-year dissertation of Engineers Ireland's accredited BEng (Hons) in Fire Safety Engineering at ATU Donegal (formerly LYIT). The three titles listed here include: 'The efficacy of extinguishing agents on electric vehicle fires'; 'Comparison of fire safety equipment in rental dwellings and private dwellings'; and 'An investigation into the practicalities and legalities of controlled burning within Ireland'. 

1. 'The efficacy of extinguishing agents on electric vehicle fires'

Electric vehicles have increased on roads in the past three years. This increase is driven by popularity and a global aim towards sustainability. With the increase in vehicles, the risk of fire in these vehicles also increase.

There is no standard operational guidance for the fire service in dealing with electric vehicle fires. There is also no certainty on what extinguishing agents to use on these vehicle fires. This dissertation seeks to determine the most effective extinguishing agent for electric vehicle fires.

The research of this dissertation focused on hybrid and fully electric vehicles in Ireland. The limitation to this focus is that commercial vehicles are not included in this study. Full scale testing of electric vehicles is limited. Therefore, data from these tests are not widely available for comparison.

The aim of this dissertation is to discover the most effective agent for extinguishing electric vehicle fires, and a delivery mechanism for that agent. The primary data for this dissertation was obtained during interviews conducted with senior fire officers.

The interview process was to establish if the effective extinguishing agents could be successfully applied by the fire service on a fire in an electric vehicle. Secondary data informed this study in terms of viable extinguishing agents and application methods for the agents.

Experiments were conducted on batteries for electric vehicles. This experimental data was used to meet the aim of the dissertation. It was found that water is the most effective extinguishing agent for fires in electric vehicles.

The thermal property of water allows it to cool the battery module. This cooling would stop the process of thermal runaway in the battery that causes fires.

It was found that more than 10,000 litres of water is needed to extinguish a fire in an electric vehicle. This required volume has an impact on fire service response methods. It is recommended that the findings in this dissertation be used to develop a standard organisational guidance for the fire service for these vehicle types. 

2. 'Comparison of fire safety equipment in rental dwellings and private dwellings' 

There is currently a problem: the number of fatal fires occurring in dwellings.

Between 2015 to 2019, 97% of fatal fires occurred in dwellings. There has not been the same level of research into fatal fires in dwellings compared to that of high-rise buildings, offices and industrial buildings. 

This study investigates the differences in fire safety equipment between rental and private dwellings. To achieve this, this dissertation examined the fatal fires between 2015 to 2019 and the amount of fire safety equipment in dwellings. It also assesses the maintenance of the fire safety equipment and if training of occupants in the use of fire safety equipment could make a difference.

A number of quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilised in this study to gather information to write this dissertation. An interview was conducted with an estate agent to gather data on rental dwellings. 

A questionnaire was carried out to collect information on the amount of fire equipment in dwellings. There was also statistical analysis of fatal fires between 2015 to 2019 performed.

The dissertation concluded that there are differences in fire safety equipment between private and rental properties. The research revealed that the chance of a fatal fire occurring in a private dwelling in Ireland is 0.005%. 

For rental dwellings this is 0.007%. This implies that there is little difference in the chance of a fatal fire occurring in a private dwelling to rental dwelling.  There are however differences in the amount of fire safety equipment in private and rental dwellings. 

This is due to the Statutory Instrument 139 2019 (Minimum Standards for Rental Housing). When it comes to maintenance of the fire safety equipment in rental dwellings it is unclear who is responsible for the inspections and upkeep of them.

It is recommended that further research is carried out into the responsibly of maintenance of fire equipment in rental dwellings. Further research may also be carried out into the behaviour of occupants in a dwelling fire as this may be a main cause of fatal fires.

3. 'An investigation into the practicalities and legalities of controlled burning within Ireland'

The utilisation of controlled burning as a land management technique within Ireland has been in existence since the 18th century. However, as awareness continues to rise surrounding the ecological and environmental impact of uncontrolled fires, an intense debate has arisen between landowners and ecologists embroiled in the matter. 

With an increase in wildfires year on year from poorly conducted burns, both parties have hit an impasse with their discussions. As the discourse continues to escalate, the need for an alternative approach has become readily apparent. 

The alternative measure in questions must appease landowners who require a form of land management and ecologists preserving Ireland’s fauna and flora.

The overall aim and objectives of this dissertation are to investigate the debate while analysing the legislation surrounding controlled burning and studying the alternative measures presented. 

Each alternative introduced in this dissertation will be assessed for its strengths and weaknesses in relation to how it would fare as a plausible idea and for its practicality and execution.

Throughout the dissertation the research methods employed are semi-structured style interviews and a case study. The combination of primary and secondary data enables verification and validation of the data collected and thus the research can be presented in an unbiased manner.

The result of the study concluded that controlled burning when conducted correctly proved to be a valid form of land management, but that how it is currently practised in Ireland is not fit for purpose. 

It was assessed that the feeling in Ireland was that change was needed, as these burnings were now in direct conflict with both European regulations and Irish climate acts. 

Four alternative measures were analysed, with the findings revealing that a multifaceted approach was required due to the variation of terrain found throughout Ireland. 

Of critical importance to the success of these measures were the creation of an educational programme educating landowners on the dangers of fire and the enforcement of stricter penalties for those who illegally burn.

Limitations in the research took the form of time constraints when finding willing participants and a restricted word count. Suggestions for further research are recommended within this dissertation.

Fire safety engineering: Abstracts from final-year dissertations

Engineering Sprinklers to BS 9251: 2021

In this two-part article with a difference, Sean Brady looks further afield to explore how ‘expertise bias’ may cloud our judgment. 

Jump

The C-47 flew over the Missouri River and began circling above Mann Gulch, all the time buffeted by strong winds. Wag Dodge, the smokejumper foreman, along with the spotter, Earl Cooley, lay on the floor of the plane and looked out of the open door at the fire burning in the gulch below. It was 3.10pm. It had been a rough ride from the smokejumper base at Missoula, Montana.

Most of the 15 smokejumpers squeezed into the plane behind Dodge were eager to jump, anything to get out of the bouncing plane. A number of the men had thrown up.

One had taken off his jumpsuit and would fly back to Missoula and resign. Cooley drew Dodge’s attention to a spot on the northern slope, about a kilometre from the nearest point of the fire, which now covered 60 acres (Figure 1) – small by US Forest Service standards. Dodge studied the jump spot.

They wouldn’t be able to land a rescue helicopter if something went wrong, but it would work. Then the pilot spoke in Cooley’s earphones: they would be jumping from 2,000 feet instead of the usual 1,200 – the turbulent winds in the gulch were sucking the plane downwards.

There would be more scatter of the men and equipment, but they’d just have to deal with that on the ground. Dodge stood up and took position by the open door. The rest of the smokejumper crew followed suit. 

Figure 1: Map of Mann Gulch showing sequence of events

They would jump in ‘sticks’ – groups of four – with the plane circling back to make another pass over the gulch with each successive ‘stick’, before finally dropping the cargo.

Dodge’s static line was snapped onto a rod on the roof of the plane and the other end was connected to his parachute. Cooley remained lying on the floor beside the open door, ready to give the customary tap to the top of Dodge’s left calf as the signal to jump – words were useless over the roar of the engine and rush of wind through the open door.

Cooley judged the flight speed, wind speed, and all the time kept his eye on the landing spot. He waited for the right moment. Then Dodge felt the tap and stepped out into the air. In five seconds, his static line pulled taut and tore open his parachute.

He began the one-minute drop to the ground below. The temperature was 36°C, the hottest day recorded in nearby Helena since records began. Such heat, when combined with the turbulent winds in the gulch, had the potential to create almost impossible firefighting conditions. And they would.

Within two hours of these 15 men parachuting into this obscure gulch on the Missouri River, 12 would be dead or dying, making August 5, 1949, one of the most tragic days in US Forest Service history.

Mann Gulch

Mann Gulch lies in what is known as the ‘Gates of the Mountains’ in Montana. This 4km-long dry gulch, or valley, is bordered by the Missouri River at its foot. Its sides are steep and its northern ridge is topped with a tall rock ‘reef’ outcrop (Figure 2).

To the south of the gulch is Meriwether Canyon and to the north is the ominously named Rescue Gulch. Inside Mann Gulch itself, the southern slope is dominated by thick ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, while the northern slope – which will become central to our story – is covered with waist-high ‘bunch’ and ‘cheat’ grass, with the odd patch of trees.

To the firefighter, these two slopes create very different challenges. Fire burning among trees tends to burn at a terrific heat, but moves slowly, about 1.5km/h. By contrast, fire on a predominantly grassy slope burns with considerably less heat, but spreads rapidly, sometimes travelling as fast as the wind driving it.

The fire in Mann Gulch had started the day before, when a lighting strike hit a band of ponderosa pine on the southern slope of the gulch, down near the river. The fire was noticed the next day by a nearby lookout and Jim Harrison, a forest ranger.

The smokejumpers from Missoula were called and a large team requested, but because all planes but one were on other fires, only Dodge’s crew was sent.

When Dodge first saw the fire through the open door of the C-47 he wasn’t worried. He considered it a ‘10 o’clock fire’ – they would dig a fire line around it that night and have it under control by 10am the next morning.

The smokejumpers considered themselves the elite of the US Forest Service’s firefighters. Put together nine years previously, the group’s role was to tackle and contain small fires before they grew and became more destructive.

With speed being a critical element in their response, parachuting onto a fire was vastly more effective than wasting critical time tracking through rugged country. Their firefighting technique was to create a fire line.

Their tools were shovels and saws, along with the all-important Pulaski axe, itself an invention of the Forest Service. The head of the Pulaski had an axe on one side and a hoe on the other, making it perfect for scraping away soil.

The smokejumpers would arrange themselves in a line on the flank of the fire, close to its front, and using the Pulaski dig a shallow trench about 3ft wide, removing all material down to mineral soil, including tree branches and vegetation.

Denied fuel, the fire shouldn’t cross the fire line, and by controlling its direction of spread they could ‘drive’ it onto open ground or a rock shelf where it would burn itself out.

Mopping up followed, with the jumpers using shovels to dig holes and bury still smouldering logs. This was arduous and dangerous work, and a young man’s game. Wag Dodge, the foreman, was the eldest at 33, with many of the crew being about 20.

Robert Sallee was the youngest at 17, and underage.

Reconnaissance

All of the jumpers landed safely, then they heard a crash from further down the gulch. The radio’s parachute hadn’t opened and it was pulverised on landing.

With no backup, the jumpers were now cut off from the outside world. It took until 5pm to retrieve all their gear, then Dodge decided to track down Harrison, the ranger who was already battling the fire. He instructed the men to eat some food, with Bill Hellman in charge.

The men ate, then tooled up with packs, shovels, saws and Pulaskis and began to make their way down the gulch towards the fire. Dodge found Harrison at the top of the southern ridge – he had spent the past four hours scraping a fire line to prevent the fire getting into Meriwether Canyon.

They chatted, then both joined the crew now on the southern slope. Dodge didn’t like what he saw in the burning trees, nor did he like his men being on the southern slope among the tightly packed timber – the location was a potential death trap. He ordered them to make their way from the southern slope across to the northern slope. 

Figure 2: Photograph of terrain showing key sites

They would then make their way down that side of the gulch towards the river, so they could attack the fire’s flank. If anything went wrong and the fire changed direction, they could always retreat to the river and seek shelter.

As Hellman led the men away, Dodge and Harrison went to get something to eat. The crew crossed to the northern slope and began to make good progress down the gulch. They were feeling good and weren’t worried.

Dodge, however, eating and watching the fire from a distance, became concerned, to him the fire was about to boil up, and he needed to get his men out of the gulch. Dodge and Harrison quickly rejoined the crew. It was now 5.40pm.

Over the next five minutes they moved down the gulch towards the river, watching the fire on the opposite slope. Black smoke billowed from the trees, and when it occasionally lifted, Dodge saw large tongues of flame among the tightly packed timber.

The wind was also starting to pick up to between 30 and 65km/h. The heat was intense and Dodge’s concern grew.

'Blow-up'

Suddenly, the fire spat hot embers into the grass at the foot of the northern slope, between the crew and the river (Figure 1).

Dodge saw it immediately, and ordered the men to turn round and quickly head for the top of the ridge – standard firefighting practice, as fire generally slows down at a ridge due to sparse vegetation and turbulent wind conditions.

But as the fire spread in the grass and moved towards them, now only 150 to 200 yards away, it became clear to Dodge that this was no ordinary fire: it had an intense heat because of its origin in heavy timber and had speed because it was now in grassland.

Indeed, over the decades that followed, investigations would show that what happened in Mann Gulch that day was a ‘blow-up’ – a tornado of fire caused by intense heat, natural winds, along with wind generated by the blow-up itself; the hot air rises and draws cooler air in below, further fanning the flames.

While the fire had started slowly and quietly in dense timber that morning, it would now move through the gulch with a stunning lethality and would go on to burn 4,500 acres before a team of 450 firefighters would get it under control.

For the crew in the gulch, however, their race with the fire would be over in a mere 11 minutes.

Race

At 5.45pm Dodge gave the order to turn. They had a 140m to 180m head start on the flames, and fire modelling would show that the fire was moving at about 2km/h, giving them a lead of only four to five minutes(1,2).

Despite the danger, the men remained calm as they moved quickly up the steep slope in waist-high grass still carrying their heavy tools. They were averaging about 1.5km/h, an impressive speed given the terrain, but the fire was moving faster and about to gain speed.

In only four minutes, the fire had covered 180m and reached the point where the crew turned around. Its speed had more than doubled to close to 5km/h.

Its flames were 5m-6m high. With the fire 90 metres behind the men, Dodge gave the order to drop all tools – the shovels, the Pulaskis and the saws – so that the crew could run faster. The time was 5.53pm. Amazingly, many of the crew continued to hold onto their tools.

It was as if they simply couldn’t drop them. One of the men, Walter Rumsey, remembered pulling a shovel from Eldon Diettert’s hand, but even he couldn’t drop it, instead looking for a lone tree to lean it against.

He remembers the ranger, Harrison, with his heavy pack still on, making no effort to remove it. Harrison didn’t even seem to consider that removing the pack would make him faster.

It had taken the crew eight minutes to cover the ground from the turnaround order until the order to drop tools. The fire would now cross the same ground in only one minute.

Two minutes later, at 5.55pm, Dodge, then in the lead, broke through a bunch of sparsely packed trees and had a clear view to the ridge above him. It was still 180m away and topped with a rock reef that the crew would have to find a gap through.

He realised that the crew wouldn’t make it. While the men had increased their speed to 6.5km/h, the fire was moving at almost 11km/h, with flames 9m high and a fire front 60-90m thick. It was as if the wind itself was on fire.

The air was black with smoke, Dodge’s lungs were burning from exhaustion, and noise from the flames meant that even while shouting it was hard to communicate with the men.

It was then Dodge did something remarkable, believed to be the first use of a technique that has since become standard practice for wildfire fighters. He lit an escape fire (Figure 1).

Taking a match, he lit the grass in front of him and watched flames race up the slope, burning swiftly through the grass. As the crew caught up with him, he shouted at them to get into the ashes before him. Rumsey and Sallee, then leading, had no idea what he meant and thought he was mad to light another fire. They ignored him and continued running for the ridge. Dodge continued to call to the men, telling them to get in the ashes.

Then through the smoke he heard somebody shout “to hell with this, I’m getting out of here”(2). From then on all the men just ran past, fixated on getting to the ridge.

With a wall of flame bearing down on him, Dodge wet his handkerchief and tied it round his face. He stepped into the ashes and lay face down. Just three minutes had elapsed since the order to drop tools. It was now 5.56pm.

Sallee and Rumsey made it to the ridge and looked back. They saw the crew running past Dodge. The fire seemed to be all around them and had a deafening intensity. Then they watched Dodge lie down and the flames pass over him.

In a period of just 60 seconds, the fire would go on to swallow Robert Bennett, Philip McVey, David Navon, Leonard Piper, Stanley Reba, Marvin Sherman, Joseph Sylvia, Henry Thol Jr, Newton Thompson, Silas Thompson and James Harrison, the ranger.

Their time of death occurred sometime between 5.55pm and 5.57pm, estimated from the melted hands on Harrison’s watch. Sallee and Rumsey jumped through a crevice in the rock reef, not knowing whether it would lead to safety or trap them with the flames.

Diettert was just behind them, but he paused at the crevice, seemed to decide against it, and instead made his way further along the reef. He didn’t find another gap and the fire caught him.

Once through, Rumsey sat down beside a juniper bush. Sallee simply looked at him and said nothing. Then Rumsey seemed to realise that to sit there was to die, and he got up. They moved down the ridge and into Rescue Gulch.

Then the fire poured over the top of the ridge and flowed towards them. They would survive by finding shelter on an exposed rock slide, moving around on it as the fire burnt past them before dying out further down the slope.

Aftermath

For five long minutes the fire front passed over Dodge. He was lifted from the ground two or three times by its updraft. He was saved by the 45cm-high layer of oxygen above the ground that the fire couldn’t steal. When it moved beyond him he stood up, red eyed from smoke and covered in soot.

It was 6.10pm. He looked up and down the slope. It was a barren wasteland. All was silent apart from the staccato explosions of trees that had been superheated by the fire. Then he heard moaning. It would turn out to be Sylvia, horrifically burnt and drifting in and out of consciousness.

Sallee and Rumsey would stand up on their rock slide and see Hellman stumble into Rescue Gulch. Somehow he had made it through to the ridge and through the rock reef after being burnt by the flames.

He collapsed and they did their best to comfort him. Hellman asked Sallee to give a message to his wife, but afterwards Sallee couldn’t remember what it was. Eleven men died in the gulch, mercifully killed by lack of oxygen before the flames reached them.

The death toll would go on to rise to 13 – both Sylvia and Hellman would die from their injuries before noon the next day. Only Dodge, Rumsey and Sallee walked out of the gulch alive.

Three questions

While there are many questions we can ask about Mann Gulch, we will start with three. First, why did the crew continue to carry their heavy tools, slowing themselves down, and almost guaranteeing their death?

Second, why did the crew ignore Dodge’s escape fire and keep running for the ridge?

Finally, what does a wildfire in a gulch more than 60 years ago have to do with the business of engineering?

Author: Sean Brady is the managing director of Brady Heywood, based in Brisbane, Australia. The fi rm provides forensic and investigative structural engineering services and specialises in determining the cause of engineering failure and non-performance. Web: www.bradyheywood.com.au Twitter: @BradyHeywood

References

1) Rothermel RC (1993) General Technical Report INT-299: Mann Gulch Fire: A Race That Couldn’t Be Won, [Online] www.nifc.gov/safety/mann_gulch/ investigation/reports/Mann_Gulch_Fire_A_ Race_That_Could_Not_Be_Won_May_1993.pdf (Accessed: May 2015)

2) Maclean N (1992) Young Men and Fire, Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press

 

Wedded to our tools: Why expertise can hold us back – Part 1

In the first part of a series of articles on Ireland's Decade of Centenaries, we examine events that occurred 100 years ago: the burning of Dublin's Custom House, which was designed by James Gandon, took 10 years to build and was completed in 1791. We will look at the design of the building; its architect; and reconstruction works in the 1980s.

At 12.55pm on May 25, 1921, the IRA seized the Custom House, Dublin, which was designed by James Gandon. In what was the IRA’s largest single operation during the War of Independence, it then set fire to the building. Nine people – five IRA members and four civilians – were killed in the gun-battles, which took place in and around the building. The Custom House, one of the British government’s most important administrative buildings in Ireland at the time, was completely destroyed.

The building's administrative records were also destroyed. Six weeks later, the Irish and British sides in the conflict reached a truce, thus marking the end of the War of Independence. 

 

Dublin’s Custom House is regarded as one of the jewels in the city's architectural crown. A masterpiece of European neo-classicism, it took 10 years to build and was completed in 1791. It cost the then not inconsiderable sum of £200,000.

Enhancing streets and public buildings of Dublin

It was the greatest achievement of James Gandon who had been brought over from England to carry out the work. Gandon had been chosen by John Beresford, chief revenue commissioner and a small coterie of the Irish ascendency who were then in the process of enhancing the streets and public buildings of Dublin.

The sculptures which are located in various parts of the building were by the famous Irish sculptor, Edward Smyth.

Initially the building was exclusively the headquarters of the Commissioners of Custom and Excise; however by the beginning of the 20th century, the dominant role of the Custom House was in relation to local government. The building was the home of Inland Revenue and the Local Government Board. 

 

Following the fire attack, restoration work was competed by 1928. A second programme of restoration began in the 1980s and was completed in time for the bicentenary of the Custom House in 1991.

As part of the government’s Decade of Centenaries, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage held a remembrance event, in conjunction with relatives of both those who took part in the attack and civilians who were killed in the attack, on May 25, 2021.

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Darragh O’Brien TD, said: “Today marks the 100th anniversary of one of the most significant events of the War of Independence. It is with a strong sense of history that my department and I, as custodians of the Custom House, remember the nine people who were killed in the attack, while also celebrating this remarkable, 230- year-old building.”

Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Catherine Martin TD, added: “We are now in the most sensitive and complex period of the centenaries programme. I welcome today’s commemoration, prompting all of us to reflect upon the significant historical event that took place at the Custom House a century ago. When exploring our history we have a responsibility to recognise the value of ideals and sacrifices, including their cost.

"On this significant centenary, we remember the nine people who lost their lives at the Custom House and the subsequent impact on their families and the campaign for independence.”

 

Refurbishment of Custom House Visitor Centre

As part of its work to celebrate the Custom House’s architectural and historical significance, the department – in conjunction with the Office of Public Works, and with the support of Fáilte Ireland – are carrying out a refurbishment of the Custom House Visitor Centre, with the installation of new exhibition and interpretation displays.

The centre will cover not only the 1921 attack and fire but also the history of this remarkable building. Unfortunately due to COVID-19 restrictions its opening has been delayed until later in 2021. Details will be announced later this year.

Minister O’Brien said: “The new permanent visitor centre in the Custom House will properly celebrate James Gandon’s architectural masterpiece, while also giving a detailed account of the 1921 attack. This will be really significant for Dublin’s north inner city.

“We hope to offer a very informative and interesting visitor attraction that will be visited by many. And later this year, when COVID-19 restrictions are hopefully lifted, my department and I will be engaging directly with schools in the area around the Custom House, making history come alive for our students.”

Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Patrick O’Donovan TD, added: “The Custom House is one of Dublin’s most accomplished neo-classical buildings and it has been in the care of the Office of Public Works for more than a century.

In the aftermath of the fire on May 25, 1921, the OPW reroofed the building and skilfully reinstated its iconic dome, and through this, as well as through the careful conservation of the exterior and interior over the decades, it has ensured that the Custom House is preserved for generations to come.

“The OPW guiding team looks forward to sharing the rich history of this building with visitors when the new visitor centre reopens later this year.”

James Gandon

James Gandon, Dublin's best-known architect, was responsible for the design of the Custom House, the Four Courts, the King's Inns and additions to the Parliament House (now the Bank of Ireland).Gandon was born in London of Huguenot extraction. 

James Gandon

At the age of 14 he was sent to Shipley's Drawing Academy where he studied the classics, mathematics, arts and particularly architecture. He met many of his future friends during his two years at Shipley's, at the end of which he became apprenticed to William Chambers. At that time Chambers was in the midst of composing his great work, his Treatise on Civil Architecture. Gandon's drawings are among these. Apart from the Treatise, work included the Arch at Wilton and the Casino at Marino, Kew.

In 1765, Gandon finished his association with William Chambers and began work on Sir Samuel Hillier's estate near Wolverhampton. Gandon's practice grew slowly and remained small. His first major work was Shire Hall in Nottingham, for use by the Grand Jury, which commenced in 1769. At the same time he entered a design in the competition for a new Royal Exchange for Dublin. The design entered by Thomas Cooley was chosen, Gandon's design was second.

He was married on July 26, 1770, to Miss Eleanor Smullen, Covent Garden. They bought a house in London and had six children. From 1771 to 1777 little is known of his architectural work. In 1780 a Russian Princess invited him to Russia to build in St Petersburg. This offer included an official post with a military rank.

Instead he accepted an offer from John Beresford, chief commissioner of the Irish Revenue, to design a new Custom House in Dublin. Gandon arrived in Dublin on April 26, 1781, but work did not commence for a couple of months as there was angry opposition from the merchants who were against the relocation from the existing Custom House at Capel Street Bridge. The first stone was eventually laid on August 8, 1781, and was completed in 1791.

During the building of the Custom House, Gandon went to London to visit his wife and family. He intended to sell his house and return to Dublin with his family but his wife was ill and died soon after his arrival. He returned to Dublin in March 1782 with his three youngest children; James aged eight, Mary Anne aged ten and Elizabeth aged six.

In 1784 Gandon undertook the building of the new courthouse in Waterford. During the 1780s Gandon became a consultant to the Wide Streets Commissioners of Dublin and designed a number of buildings including Carlisle Bridge and improvements to the Rotunda lying-in hospital and gardens.

Meanwhile he was commissioned to make extensions to the Parliament House, Westmoreland Street. Work commenced in May 1785 and was completed by April 29, 1789, at a cost of a little more than £20,000.

After the death of Thomas Cooley in 1784, Gandon was appointed to complete the work of building the new Four Courts. The foundation was laid on March 3, 1786. In 1798, the foundations were laid for the east wing of the remaining offices. Work was finally completed in 1802.

The King's Inns was his last great building in Dublin. Standing with Henrietta Street to its rear and Constitution Hill to its front, it was built between 1795 and 1827. It has recently been extensively restored by the Benchers of the Honorable Society of King's Inns. The dining room there now contains the only Gandon interior (apart from some rooms inside the east portico of the Bank of Ireland building) to survive intact in a major public building. All the others have been burnt or bombed during the wars of the early 20th century or have since been radically altered.

After a long and fruitful life he was buried by his own request in the grave of his lifelong friend, Francis Grose in Drumcondra Cemetery. The inscription reads: "Such was the respect in which Gandon was held by his neighbours and friends from around his home in Lucan that they refused carriages and walked the 16 miles to and from Drumcondra on the day of his funeral."

Description of Custom House

Freestanding symmetrical 29-bay two-storey custom house, having displaying raised basement to garden and side elevations and having concealed basement to riverside elevation. Begun in 1781, to designs of James Gandon, with advanced nine-bay central block having attic storey, pedimented portico and domed cupola, reconstructed c.1925. 

Quadrangular on plan arranged around two internal courtyards with three-bay advanced corner pavilions, nine-bay side ranges and pair of three-storey central ranges. Destroyed by fire in May 1921 during the War of Independence, it was rebuilt between 1926-9 by TJ Byrne. Copper-clad shallow pitched roofs hidden behind Portland stone balustraded parapet walls with embellished parapet blocks to all corner pavilions surmounted by carved trophies to front and rear depicting arms of Ireland and surmounted by large urns to side elevations. Decorative cast-iron hoppers breaking through facades and cast-iron downpipes.

Attic storey to central nine-bay block advanced to portico and surmounted by four statues depicting Mercury, Plenty, Industry and Neptune (from left to right).
Square-plan granite ashlar drum base with chamfered corners supporting drum and Corinthian peristyle built in limestone ashlar (Ardbraccan) surmounted by diminutive attic level, copper dome and statue of Commerce on drum pedestal.

Columns arranged in pairs flanking round-headed window openings with oculi above, advanced to four corners and supporting full entablature and dentillated cornice. Diminutive square-headed window openings to attic level flanked by paired pilasters and supporting further cornice interrupted on all four sides by open pediment framing clock face and garland below.

Below cupola is pedimented tetrastyle pro-style Tuscan portico to advanced stylobate with three-bay recessed entrance. Pediment's corona and raking cornice enriched with mutules, floral panels and filled with statuary to tympanum with bucrania enriched frieze below, hide swags and harp motifs.

Four Giant Tuscan columns on attic bases with neck mouldings enriched with harp and rosette motifs and egg-and-dart mouldings below square abacus. Responding Tuscan corner piers to façade with decorative cast-iron railings and gates enclosing recessed porch. Principal central square-headed door opening having decoratively carved over-panel and gilt fanlight with riverine ancon and swags with replacement double-leaf timber panelled door.

Four statues fronting attic storey

Corresponding portico to north elevation without pediment and surmounted by four statues fronting attic storey representing Europe, Asia, Africa and America (left to right) with rectangular panel and draped swag.

Responding Tuscan pilasters to façade flank three round arches having riverine ancons and swags opening into recessed porch with groin-vaulting, central round-headed door opening flanked by empty niches and two round-headed windows with further empty niches to either end.

Three bays to either side of portico with central recessed bay flanked by Giant Tuscan columns below frieze having pedimented window to first floor and square-headed opening to ground floor with decoratively-carved over-panel and gilt fanlight with riverine ancon and swags.

This columnar device is repeated to north and south elevations of corner pavilions. Seven bay wings to south elevation are arcaded to ground floor with rusticated walls and piers rising from full-span steps with decorative spearheaded cast-iron railings enclosing recessed groin-vaulted arcade with corresponding square-headed door openings having architrave surrounds, timber panelled doors, webbed fanlights and roundel with swag over each door. South front elevation walls built in coursed Portland stone ashlar with plain plinth course, dentillated platband between floors and deep moulded cornice enriched with guttae, mutules and decorative panels.

North and side elevation walls built in coursed granite ashlar, rusticated to ground floor of side elevations only, with Portland stone plinth course and platband between floors and surmounted by cornice and balustraded parapet as per front elevation. Square-headed window openings with replacement timber sliding sash windows throughout having architrave surrounds to attic storey, entablatures to remainder and pedimented to first floor of wings to both elevations.

Braced cast-iron railings

North portico opens onto replacement paved stylobate and front paved area with basement exposed and enclosed by braced cast-iron railings. Single-storey with attic wing to east, connecting front and rear ranges with hipped slate roof having dormers behind balustraded parapet and rusticated arcaded granite walls with recessed round-headed window openings and recessed round-headed bay to either end, that to south providing access to internal courtyard.

Two bitmac paved internal courtyards accessed via vehicular ramps with stone parapet walls. Seven-bay two-storey over railed basement to west, connecting front and rear ranges with arcaded bays set in rusticated granite walls to ground floor, pedimented windows to first floor and round-headed recessed bay to either end, that to south providing access to internal courtyard.

Interior generally dates from 1929 reconstruction with 18th-century vestibules to north and south fronts retained. South vestibule lit by galleried octagonal vestibule to first floor with carved Bath stone walls and door surrounds in turn lit by replacement concrete dome located within drum base. North vestibule has double Ionic columnar screen to stair hall with open-well balustraded stone stair adorned with riverine heads.

Open-well stone stair located to southwest pavilion with colonnaded screens to each floor, inserted in 1929. Rectangular pool to rear with bronze statue, asphalt car park to west below railway bridge and landscaped area to east, all enclosed by cast-iron railings on reconstituted plinth wall with matching gates.
Sham ruin of classical columns to grounds, comprising un-reused original parts of building.

Appraisal

This magnificent Neo-Classical essay in civic building was built to replace the Custom House on Wellington Quay by renowned architect James Gandon as his first large-scale commission. The exterior carvings are by Edward Smyth. It was inspired by Somerset House in London by William Chambers, Gandon's master, and commissioned by John Beresford, First Commissioner of the Revenue.

The emphasis of design was laid on the south river front, executed entirely of Portland stone and surmounted by an ambitious dome with a mirrored rear elevation in a slightly more restrained style. 

Gutted by fire in 1921, the building was re-roofed and restored by 1929 by TJ Byrne of the Office of Public Works, with the reinstatement of the dome using Irish limestone as opposed to the original imported Portland stone.

Restored again in the 1980s by the OPW, the exterior was repaired while the 1920s interior was restored. Standing as one of Ireland's most accomplished Neo-Classical buildings, the troubled history of the structure and its current context, having substantial 20th century buildings to two sides, has not diminished its impact or its status as one of Dublin's key architectural set-pieces. Its burning was also one of the key events of the War of Independence.

Renovation of 1990

According to RTE's Nature of Things, which was broadcast on January 31, 1990, by reporter Áine Lawlor: 'Restoring a living building that is also a work of art is the challenge for the team at work on the Custom House in Dublin. An architectural team from the Office of Public Works have been given the task of bringing Dublin’s premier Georgian building back to its original intended splendour. When it opened in 1791 it replaced the old Custom House on Essex Quay.

'Time had not been kind, and the building’s location near the sea has exposed it to salt damage which has corroded the white Portland stone. Air pollution has not helped either, discolouring and attacking the stone to such an extent that "parts of the building were so badly damaged they could have fallen away".

'Architect David Slattery from the Office of Public Works (OPW) was given the job of restoring Gandon’s Georgian masterpiece in time for its 200th anniversary celebrations. When his team began a survey of the building they found damage all over the building caused by air pollution and by original metal rods used to hold stonework together.

'Their biggest issue facing them was widespread damage caused in 1921, when the IRA attempted to burn it down, almost destroying it in the process. Subsequent repairs have only added to the headaches of the restoration team decades later. "A failure of a later repair and an indication that there’s activity with metal expanding inside."

'Fortunately, they have been able to use modern techniques such as ultrasound technology to pinpoint cracks in the stone. The Defence Forces also came to their aid, using land mine detection expertise to find out where problematic metal was located underneath or within stone blocks. Once the building was structurally sound, work could begin on cleaning and restoring the facade, made from granite and specially imported white Portland stone.

'The principle behind the restoration means that as much as the original fabric as possible is conserved. Damaged stone was re-cut to be used again in different parts of the building, ensuring that "when completed, the Custom House will still be Gandon’s building, warts and all".

'Liam Moore and his team restored the statues and sculpture around the building. He demonstrated one of the more unusual techniques, which is to moulds from silicone rubber to make replicas and restore the 200-year-old stone carvings. 

Conservationists at the Royal Coat of Arms, Custom House, Dublin (1990)

'Already in use among restoration projects on mainland Europe, this technique has only recently been used in Ireland, and their next task is to restore the coats of arms of Ireland which adorn the building using this method.'

('Nature of Things' was a series featuring science, technology and the environment. It was first broadcast on October 26, 1989, and ran for two series in 1989 and 1990.) 

Lecture series and further information:

The ‘Burning of the Custom House Conference’, a weekly online lecture series is available to view here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEozLVQ4akJeKTjtAU-3jhg


 

Decade of Centenaries: Part I – Burning of James Gandon's Custom House, Dublin

In July 2020 a new revision to Technical Guidance Document B (TGD-B) came into force, the first significant amendment to the code since 2006 (except for the publication of the separate volume 2 for ‘Dwelling Houses’ in 2017), writes Fergal Finnerty, senior fire engineer at ORS.

The amendment is titled ‘Reprinted Editions 2020 Amendments & Corrections Incorporated’, and the edits relate primarily to buildings containing flats, in particular open plan flats.

The guidance came into effect on July 1, 2020, for design of works, or material change of use etc, except for certain limited scenarios, including among others where:

  • A planning application was made on/ before June 30, 2020, or;
  • A fire safety certificate has been granted on or before June 30, 2020;
  • And where substantial work is completed before June 30, 2023.

Among the early amendments, a new subsection discusses ‘Tall and complex buildings containing flats’; however, no significant additional specifications are included, and reference is made to pre-existing paragraphs facilitating fire safety engineering approaches.

In addition to clarifications in respect of common fire alarm systems, and the provision of disabled refuge spaces, in buildings containing flats, the main changes in this code are the addition of new subsections in Section B1 (means of escape), as follows:

‘1.6 Open Plan Flats’

Open plan flats were previously permitted with restricted travel distance (max. 9m without alternate escape). The new code offers more flexibility for designers with travel distances up to 20m permitted when the following provisions apply:

  • Sprinkler system (domestic grade) to be provided;
  • Only single storey flat permitted (not duplex);
  • Increased specification fire detection and alarm within the flat; and
  • Kitchen separated by 1.8m distance, or wall construction, from the escape route.

‘1.7 Protected Corridors/ Lobbies Serving all Flats’

This new section offers extended travel distances in common corridors to flats in buildings/parts served by a single stair. Up to 15m dead-end travel is now available from the storey exit (stairway) to the flat entrance door, albeit that this will require sprinkler systems (domestic grade) in all flats on the storey. The section also provides guidance around smoke control systems and natural smoke shafts.

‘1.8 Domestic Sprinkler Systems’

The new code provides relaxations where domestic grade sprinkler systems are provided. This this new section outlines the performance requirements, including relevant standard (BS 9251), minimum duration (30 minutes), on-site water storage not less than 3m3 etc. Finally, an amended Diagram 33 for Section B5 clarifies that a fire-fighting lobby must be provided to fire-fighting stairs (for very tall buildings, more than 20m above ground level)

Commentary

In TGD-B (2006) the reader was directed to BS 5588-1 (1990) for guidance in respect of residential buildings. This BS code was withdrawn by the BSI in 2011 and replaced with BS 9991, a new code, yet BS 5588-1 was still referenced in TGD-B. BS 9991 contained advancements in fire safety design guidance, particularly in respect of the benefits of sprinkler protection to open plan flats.

Since 2011 there has been ambiguity in Ireland as to whether BS 9991 could or should be used in lieu of BS 5588-1. ‘Cherry picking’ from different codes is frowned upon, so consensus in many circles was that either BS 5588-1 or BS 9991 should be used.

The Grenfell Tower fire occurred on June 14, 2017, resulting in 72 deaths. In the public inquiry, chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick last year criticised the fire service watch manager for failing to consider an evacuation sooner saying that ‘fewer people would have died’ if the ‘stay put’ policy had been lifted. 

He directed fire and rescue services to draw-up contingency plans for total or partial evacuations when dealing with fires in high-rise single-stair buildings.

In 2019 a ‘Regulatory Impact Assessment’ report by the Department of Housing & Planning in Ireland examined the matter of the withdrawal of the BS 5588-1 code and the impact on TGD-B.

It highlighted the fact that BS 9991 ‘is heavily, and explicitly predicated on a stay-put fire safety strategy’. As a result, it recommended extracting sections relating to open-plan flats from the BS 9991 and inserting them into a revised/amended TGD-B.

There are important distinctions between the reasons for ‘stay put’ policy and immediate mass evacuation in high-rise single stair buildings, as distinct from moderate height buildings with multiple stairs.

The BS 9991 code includes recommendations that ‘there will be some occasions where operational conditions are such that the occupants of the building will need to use the common stair, sometimes while fire-fighting is in progress. As such the measures in [BS 9991] for the protection of common stairs are designed to ensure that they remain available for use over an extended period'.

In respect of multiple stair buildings, the BS 9991 code contains very similar guidance to the BS 5588-1 code, yet is ‘tweaked’ in certain important areas. 

For example, both use very similar drawings and specifications for ‘Common escape routes in balcony/ deck approach buildings’, yet the newer BS 9991 code contains more onerous specifications, eg, all parts of the building should be within 45m of a firemain, as opposed to 60m in the BS 5588-1 code… which is still referenced by TGD-B (2020).

While clarity in respect of the sprinkler provisions for open plan flats is welcome, the fact that only certain sections of code have been selected from BS 9991 means that the reader is directed back to the BS 5588-1 code, which is still referenced.

It remains to be seen how designers and the Irish fire authorities deal with the other residential building types that were not lucky enough to have been plucked from BS 9991.

See if you can spot the difference!...

For further information, contact Fergal Finnerty, senior fire engineer at ORS. Email: f.finnerty@ors.ie

 

Technical Guidance Document B 2020: Tweaked for open plan living

Theme picker