FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jasper on September 16, 2008, 03:06:02 PM

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: jasper on September 16, 2008, 03:06:02 PM

Hi all, I have been to look at a warehouse building where this is a large portal frame building, however in their wisdom they have created some labs within this which appear to be not constructed of fire resistant material, the labs are not really high risk but some analysis equipment is left on overnight, would a possible trade off for poor construction be full afd to the warehouse in in the labs?

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: Dinnertime Dave on September 16, 2008, 04:05:15 PM

Do the Labs need to be FR for means of escape? I suspect not.
Do the Labs need to be FR for business continuity reasons?
Do you need the AFD to overcome an inner room? Yes, if vision of the outer room isn`t available.
If you provide AFD due to the equipment being on overnight who will it alert?

I think what I am trying to say if the Labs need to be FR then I would enforce it, but the picture you paint my only concern is overcoming the inner room.

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: nearlythere on September 16, 2008, 05:45:28 PM

Quote from: jasper

Hi all, I have been to look at a warehouse building where this is a large portal frame building, however in their wisdom they have created some labs within this which appear to be not constructed of fire resistant material, the labs are not really high risk but some analysis equipment is left on overnight, would a possible trade off for poor construction be full afd to the warehouse in in the labs?

Are the labs inner rooms or do they have a means of escape directly to open air?

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: jasper on September 16, 2008, 07:09:11 PM

inner rooms as such, but have vp

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: kurnal on September 16, 2008, 07:24:41 PM

I would consider if there is a gradient of fire risk between the warehouse and the labs. Is the risk in the labs any higher than the warehouse? If so enclose it in fire resisting materials for property protection reasons. If the risk is the same either side of the lab wall then I would not upgrade it.

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: jasper on September 17, 2008, 12:16:46 AM

Quote from: kurnal

I would consider if there is a gradient of fire risk between the warehouse and the labs. Is the risk in the labs any higher than the warehouse? If so enclose it in fire resisting materials for property protection reasons. If the risk is the same either side of the lab wall then I would not upgrade it.

not bother with afd then?

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: kurnal on September 17, 2008, 06:00:34 AM

For life safety perhaps not unless there are other issues- travel distances, mezzanines, unoccupied areas where fire could develop unseen if there is potential for it to affect MOE, risk of rapid fire growth affecting MOE etc. An M system is still the benchmark for an occupied workplace with no other problems.

I would point out be benefits of AFD for property protection and business continuity linked to a call handling centre in every case.

Title: trade off for poor construction
Post by: Mr. P on September 17, 2008, 10:49:53 AM

Having full AFD is only good if there is someone to respond if it sets off or, it is linked to an auto dialer or similar. Having specified AFD would be better for life risk during work hours i.e. L3. Depends on how the works areas are occupied, at what times and for how long. and how they interface/connect.