Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Community Fire Safety / Re: New homes missing fire safety barriers
« Last post by Owain on March 22, 2019, 09:17:31 AM »
None other than that article, but Mr Cox has a website for his business.
Fire Safety / Re: Fire Wardens
« Last post by Fire Monkey on March 22, 2019, 09:06:41 AM »
Robust agricultural counsel?? That's a new on one me
Community Fire Safety / Re: New homes missing fire safety barriers
« Last post by Fire Monkey on March 22, 2019, 09:03:08 AM »
Since I will be doing a loft cavity inspection (not in the SW) on Monday this sure is interesting. Any more details on exactly what they did wrong?
Community Fire Safety / New homes missing fire safety barriers
« Last post by Owain on March 21, 2019, 05:45:50 PM »
Homes built by one of the UK's largest developers were constructed without essential barriers to slow the spread of fire.

Regulations dictate the flame-resistant material must be installed in roof spaces and wall cavities.

Housebuilder Persimmon Homes found it was missing from some properties on estates in south-west England.

It has written to more than 1,000 people to say their homes need to be checked.

One resident in Truro, Cornwall, said his house "is potentially a massive fire risk".

The homeowner, who did not want to be named, said recent inspections of his five-year-old house revealed "a vast amount" of fire were barriers missing.

Some of the homes affected are on a Persimmon-built estate in Exeter where a fire last year "rapidly escalated" as it spread between properties.

Speaking about the blaze, Cornwall councillor Dulcie Tudor said it had spread "through to the roofs of the adjoining houses".

Fire safety consultant Alan Cox said blazes "could easily travel from one compartment or property to another" if there were missing barriers "at roof level".

« Last post by bevfs on March 20, 2019, 09:08:54 AM »
are theses logged anywhere for viewing?(case history) Would be interesting to see how the law is applied by the courts
Fire Safety / Re: Control of numbers
« Last post by lyledunn on March 20, 2019, 07:15:53 AM »
Final decision by BC; room must have MOE capacity based a floor factor of 2 persons per M2 which reflects possible use as a bar or similar. Even though the project is based on 9999 in which section 16.2 allows a method of assessing occupant capacity on the available width of the MOE, BC are not prepared to acknowledge. Looks like arbitration will be required as their ruling effectively kills the viability of the venue.
Fire Safety / Re: Fire Wardens
« Last post by Demontim on March 14, 2019, 08:56:00 AM »
"I don't understand the difficulty in colleges. There are usually enough senior managers to fill a football stadium!"

That may well be true but for many managers (senior or otherwise) and academics, if it's not in their job description they won't do it. I've personally witnessed a lecturer pushing students out of the way when the fire alarm has sounded and leaving them to take care of themselves (needless to say some robust agricultural counsel was offered to said lecturer once everyone was clear of the building).
Fire Safety / Re: Fire Wardens
« Last post by lyledunn on March 14, 2019, 07:28:39 AM »
I don't understand the difficulty in colleges. There are usually enough senior managers to fill a football stadium!
I've used both 6l and larger foam extinguishers, including similar trolley extinguishers, and would urge caution on a direct multiplication. The main difference is that with a 144B tray you are covering an area of 4.5sq m (tray 2.4m diameter) which is easy to move round to quickly control the flames. A 1080B rating implies an area of 36sq m or a diameter of 6.8m - rather less easy to move round and a greater intensity of radiation as well. On the other hand the application rate and throw from the trolley extinguisher is greater than from a hand-held extinguisher. My gut reaction is to go for around half the direct multiplying factor, say 500B? But that suggestion is very much with little evidence to back it!

AnthonyB's comments re DP are interesting, but I assume it is far more likely that your liquid fuel fire will be a single large 'puddle' than a number of smaller ones!

Interestingly the biggest fire I ever tackled was a 40sq m fire of aviation gasoline (AVGAS) using a standard fire service hosereel spray nozzle (ie non-aspirating) using premixed AFFF solution through 19mm hosereel tubing - took about 2m 45s to put out. The fire service crew backing me up then tried a FB5X branch - its much higher application rate knocked down the fire in about 45s.
Some factors affecting the difference between the two:
- What foam is used: There are variants of AFFF giving different ratings
- Application rate and type: Foam portables are now usually a non aspirated spray discharge, most trolleys are still low expansion aspirated branchpipe type, the finished foam & performance will differ

If made to BS EN 1866, the standard for Mobile fire extinguishers, you can be sure that:
- The foam used would achieve at least 13A in a 9 litre portable extinguisher
- It would also achieve at least 183B in a 9 litre portable extinguisher

For reference's sake If it was powder it would have to be able to achieve at least 34A in a 9 kilo portable and would be fire rated IB, IIB, IIIB, or IVB for class B fires based on the following tests:
- All should be able to extinguish a fire test with 1 x 233B tray and 1 x 21B tray
- Each higher rating requires an additional 21B tray to be extinguished as well up to a total of 1 x 233B & 4 x 21B trays at IVB rating
- for each rating the proximity of the various trays alters

A lot of mobile extinguisher mandatory provision (e.g. small airfields) is based on media quantities rather than ratings so it never really took off as a requirement.

Perhaps looking at foam application rates for the fuels involved as if you were using hose & branchpipe from an appliance or hydrant network might give some input?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10