Retro fitting sprinklers in high rise blocks

[William 29]

Sprinkler week is coming up in Feb and a number of fire services are pushing for the fitting of sprinklers in existing high rise blocks. This is largely based on the Lakanal and Shirley Towers high rise fires. I have given presentations on both to several large housing groups in the Country and also seen an excellent BRE fire modelling presentation on Lakanal. Is there any evidence out there that if sprinklers were fitted in these blocks they would have had any significant impact on the outcomes, given the external fire spread issues at Lakanal and the operational tactics and difficulties at both incidents?

Is there justification in "pushing" for retro fitting of sprinklers in a 1960/70's tower block unless there are any known significant breaches in the FR that can not be easily rectified? It just seems that there is a blanket approach to this based on these two incidents without using a cost benefit risk based approach.

I am aware of the Callow Mount Project that states the sprinklers were fitted at a cost of £1150 per flat. I would be interested in any justification or experience for making this what looks like fire service standard policy?

[Golden]

A discussion that tends to polarise the fire safety community. In my opinion sprinklers are a fantastic and simple method of suppressing fire wherever they are used and undoubtedly would have saved lives at Lakanal (doesn't the BRE study/presentation make this point?) and saved the firefighters at Shirley Towers and Harrow Court. The problem comes with the cost as they are extremely expensive to install and inspect/maintain, the figure of £1150 per flat is often quoted but many London boroughs have found that the minimum quotes they have received are in the order of trebling that figure. I have seen the Callow Mount presentation and it is a nice 'feelgood' show - if those tenants were asked to stump up a few hundred quid a year for the system and its maintenance I wonder how many would be so supportive? It is important to look at whole life costing of the installation. In my opinion if the block doesn't have any issues with respect to compartmentation then it would be difficult to justify fitting sprinklers; in addition in all three cases mentioned there were other failings however the fitting of sprinklers is seen as the easy option for making all of these issues disappear.

Also I believe there is some confusion over the different types of sprinkler systems available and where they can be used - a 9251 residential system has different requirements to a 5306/12845 system. It worries me that some 'alternative design strategies' to increase compartment size, etc, are being passed as a 'sprinkler system' is being fitted however nobody is checking to what standard!

[Mike Buckley]

Have a look at these links based on the Station fire in the States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6rP2m28itU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEdAx2sC9Qg

With reference to the Lakanal, the obvious answer is that although sprinklers would not have stopped the external spread of fire, they would probably have controlled the fire before it reached that stage.

As far as a cost benefit analysis goes it comes down to what people are prepared to accept. Fires like Lakanal are rare, they hit the headlines because they are so rare. The government statistics tell us the number of deaths in fires is falling and this is used as a justification for reducing fire fighters etc. So where does the argument go? You could say that if you put sprinklers into every building you could virtually eliminate fires. This in turn means that you can cut the majority of the fire service, cost benefit?

[wee brian]

Sprinklers would probably have saved most or all of the Lakanal Victims. Mind you. If the building had been properly maintained then maybe that would have achived the same.

This is worth a look;

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=22928&Opt=3

[nearlythere]

Does anyone have the video of the "Experiment" on its own?

[William 29]

Sprinklers would probably have saved most or all of the Lakanal Victims. Mind you. If the building had been properly maintained then maybe that would have achived the same.

This is worth a look;

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=22928&Opt=3

Good info WB. It would seem that the Council are taking a balanced view on the fitting of sprinklers in existing blocks which was my thought process. It would seem they are looking at known vulnerable persons as well that can't self evacuate. When you look at the figures they have spent/spending I would say in most cases it will be cost prohibitive.

[AnthonyB]

From experience of a site where residential sprinklers were installed to compensate for several ADB departures I would say that whilst they are undoubtedly of value trying to get them properly maintained and checked is a nightmare - not just cost but actually getting in to do the servicing - even after paying a sprinkler company to be on site for a 15 day solid block each year to try and give maximum opportunity to gain access it's still not near 100%....

[wee brian]

There are a few people that are arguing that servicing within the flats is not so critical and could be omitted.

basically if the pumps and valves are OK then the heads will look after themselves.

[kurnal]

In a tall block of flats over 30m in which domestic sprinklers have been installed in accordance with ADB  are the sprinklers there for the protection of the occupants of the individual flats or for protection of the communal areas?

[AnthonyB]

Unfortunately in the building I've had dealings with there are no communal pumps or valves, each system is self contained to each flat with it's own valves, plus concealed heads where redecoration could in theory over time paint over the plates.

Because the system is for both protection of the communal areas as well as the occupants of each flat (the ADB departures are in both areas) it has been determined that these systems must be maintained even to the extent of forced entry under the lease to do so - to avoid this they are looking at training the concierge team as residential sprinkler service engineers so that over a 12 month period they should be able to get in each flat.

My interpretation is that the sprinkler requirement for high rise blocks that do follow ADB traditional standards is for the communal areas and non fire flats to delay spread beyond compartments (which will also help with fire fighting & any fire service led progressive evacuation) and as the requirement is under B3 as if each flat is a compartment with internal layout & AFD to ADB then the occupiers of the fire flat should be as equally able to escape to the common parts regardless of whether they are on the first floor of a 3 storey low rise or the twentieth floor of a high rise.

[Golden]

Apparently if you put 25 monkeys with 25 typewriters in a room for five minutes they can write a better residential and domestic sprinkler guide than BS 9251.

[Dinnertime Dave]

In a tall block of flats over 30m in which domestic sprinklers have been installed in accordance with ADB  are the sprinklers there for the protection of the occupants of the individual flats or for protection of the communal areas?

According to the planning portal it is for the protection of individuals in their own flats. It is estimated that the provision of sprinklers reduces fire deaths by 70%

[Dinnertime Dave]

Unfortunately in the building I've had dealings with there are no communal pumps or valves, each system is self contained to each flat with it's own valves, plus concealed heads where redecoration could in theory over time paint over the plates.

Because the system is for both protection of the communal areas as well as the occupants of each flat (the ADB departures are in both areas) it has been determined that these systems must be maintained even to the extent of forced entry under the lease to do so - to avoid this they are looking at training the concierge team as residential sprinkler service engineers so that over a 12 month period they should be able to get in each flat.

My interpretation is that the sprinkler requirement for high rise blocks that do follow ADB traditional standards is for the communal areas and non fire flats to delay spread beyond compartments (which will also help with fire fighting & any fire service led progressive evacuation) and as the requirement is under B3 as if each flat is a compartment with internal layout & AFD to ADB then the occupiers of the fire flat should be as equally able to escape to the common parts regardless of whether they are on the first floor of a 3 storey low rise or the twentieth floor of a high rise.

Oh sorry, tried to be smart and put two quotes in one post but couldn't, anyway. This is my experience too small pumps generally under the sink that bleeps because it hasn't been serviced. The management company has gone bust. Not sure whether it will work if needed to. Originally installed to overcome none ADB design.

A bit like having your central heating boiler serviced each year - we all think it is a good idea but how many of us do.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Instead of putting pumps and controls under sinks or in cupboards inside flats, can't they be put in utilities cupboards outside?

[wee brian]

Yes Dave, that's the plan I think. No doubt there are lots of funny - ill conceived installations about that make life difficult.