FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Wiz on October 20, 2008, 12:29:10 PM
-
BS 5839 part 1 2002 Clause 16.2.1 i) includes the recommendation. At least one sounder should be provided in each fire compartment
This BS doesn't provide a definition of a 'fire compartment'
I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here could provide a defintion of a 'fire compartment' in the context of this recommendation
-
That's why BS5839 needs a special 'Fire Dictionary' or 'Fire Glossary'! :)
Fire compartment could be 'Fire Section' = fire room, fire partition...etc
other than that I don't know :)
-
Therefore its your definition of a fire compartment?
-
Within a building, a space enclosed by barriers of fire-resistive construction on all sides.
Made the most sense of my goggle serching
But in this context I would assume its overwritted by the decibel level requirements.
-
GregC, I'm not sure if your 'googled' defintion can actually be in context with the BS recommendation.
If the definition is as you suggest, then surely the BS is recommending that there should be a fire alarm sounder in every room, no matter if the the sound pressure level of the alarm warning is sufficient without it.
I can find no evidence to support your assumption of it being overrriden if the sound pressure level of the alarm warning is sufficient. On what do you base this assumption? Please dont' suggest 'commonsense' because this rarely applies in these situations :)
-
That's why BS5839 needs a special 'Fire Dictionary' or 'Fire Glossary'! :)
Fire compartment could be 'Fire Section' = fire room, fire partition...etc
other than that I don't know :)
Benz, 5839-1 2002 does contain a section entitled 'terms and definitions' with 63 entries, but not an entry for 'fire compartment'
-
Compartment and fire compartment are terms that are often misused.
Fire scienteists and modelers use it to mean "the room where the fire is". Some people use it for any room, or any room with FR construction. Others use it to describe parts of the building subdivided with "compartment walls and floors", not forgetting the term "sub-compartment" used in some PHE codes.
Its a term best avoided - a bit like - inflammable
-
Dr Wiz
Its a trick question, Ive been to Hull and back to find an answer.
A fire compartment is a part of a building that is separated from the rest of the building by a fire resistant structure so as to limit the spread of fire within the building, 30-60mins depending on who's information is to be believed.
The requirements for designing a building and hence its fire compartments, are defined in building regulations so there is no reference to it in BS5839.
BS5588 is listed as an indispencible normative reference for the understanding of BS5839, there is no need for BS5839 to repeat itself when its quite clearly listed in BS5588 and referenced from Bs5839,
Now if anyone has a copy of BS5588 they can advise us what the exact wording of a fire compartment is ;)
-
Well Mr GregC, I had hoped the 1-0 defeat hadn't disappointed you too much! When you are as old as me you get more used to suffering these sort of defeats!
However your rambling answer to my question has not defeated me, only bewildered me!
I accept your comment that there might be a definition of a fire compartment in BS5588.
I accept that any such definition in of a fire compartment in BS5588 might equally relate also to BS5839.
However BS5588 might recommend reference to BS5839, in which case we might, and not completely unexpectedly, disappear up our own conduit!
Does anyone out there know the BS definition of a fire compartment?
-
Compartment and fire compartment are terms that are often misused.
Fire scienteists and modelers use it to mean "the room where the fire is". Some people use it for any room, or any room with FR construction. Others use it to describe parts of the building subdivided with "compartment walls and floors", not forgetting the term "sub-compartment" used in some PHE codes.
Its a term best avoided - a bit like - inflammable
Wee Brian, thanks for your input.
But what does BS mean by a fire compartment?
How do you think your answer relates to my original query? Do you think BS might be recommending a fire alarm warning sounder in every room since one of your definitions has a room as a fire compartment?
I would suggest that virtually no-one designs to install a sounder in every room as a matter of course (except maybe a bedroom). Tests and experience show that one door is not normally a barrier to obtaining 65db in the room from a sounder in the corridor outside the room.
-
No it isnt that simple. Fire compartments are indeed parts of the building separated from the rest of the building by vertical and or horizontal separation, usually provided to meet the functional requirements of the Buildign Regulations for which BS5588 is only one of a number of design approaches which may be used. The reason for the compartmentation may be to separate different purpose groups within the building- eg flats above shops, where the profile of the risk to life is very different between the different uses. Another reason is that to limit the potential size of a fire, buildings may be subdivided into fire compartments - eg an unsprinklered shop cannot have a compartment greater than 2000 sq m. Compartment floors may be used to protect buildings from vertical fire spread- especially high buildings. High risk areas like boiler rooms may be designated as separate compatrments. Highly vulnerable rooms like operating theatres may also be isolated fromt he rest of the building using compartmentation.
The fire resistance of elements of structure used to form compartments can be from 30 minutes to 120 minutes under building regulations, or up to 4 hours for insurance requirements.
Now heres the rub- in some buildings, which are subdivided into fire compartments, each compartment may have its own totally independent fire alarm system and not be interconnected to the alarm in any other compartment. Most common example is flats over shops, where if there is a one hour compartment floor above the shops and independent access and egress to a one hour standard, each may have a totally independent - or indeed no fire alarm at all.
-
Just checked BS5588 part 1- it does not have a definition of a fire compartment. The definition in approved document B is Compartment(fire)- a building or part of a building, comprising one or more rooms spaces or storeys, constructed to prevent the spread of fire to or from another part of the same building......
So the BS5839 clause Wiz quoted is by no means the whole story. The design fire stategy of the building will determine how far this clause is to be applied.
-
Thanks Prof., I understand what you are saying, and what you say explains why, for example, a meeting room in a hotel is not necessarily a 'fire compartment' in BS terms, but I respectfully suggest that the definition you provide is still pretty hard to grasp.
Do you have any clearer definitions? For example is one floor of a building always a different 'fire compartment' from another floor?
Furthermore, from your description in the last paragraph of your answer, are you saying that it is always o.k for different areas of use/ownership in a single building to have their own independent (non-linked) fire alarm systems as long as there is 'fire compartmentation' between them, and, if so, does any such fire compartmentation have to be to a specific standard?
-
Does anyone out there know the BS definition of a fire compartment?
Hi Wiz
This is the BS definition of Fire Compartment ( extract BS4422 latest)
An enclosed space, which may be subdivided/separated from adjoining spaces within the building by elements
of construction having a specified fire resistance
Kurnal, I see some parts of the 5588 series do give a defintion of fire compatment and some parts don't.
-
However your rambling answer to my question has not defeated me, only bewildered me!?
You should have seen the first draft before I hit reply and not submit!
I would disagree with the comment regarding a single door not restricting sound, these new fangled addressable sounders dont travel through doors the way the dedicated sounders and bells seemed to previously.
-
However your rambling answer to my question has not defeated me, only bewildered me!?
You should have seen the first draft before I hit reply and not submit!
I would disagree with the comment regarding a single door not restricting sound, these new fangled addressable sounders dont travel through doors the way the dedicated sounders and bells seemed to previously.
Well I'm obviously talking about 'the dedicated sounders and bells' :)
-
Just checked BS5588 part 1- it does not have a definition of a fire compartment. The definition in approved document B is Compartment(fire)- a building or part of a building, comprising one or more rooms spaces or storeys, constructed to prevent the spread of fire to or from another part of the same building......
So the BS5839 clause Wiz quoted is by no means the whole story. The design fire stategy of the building will determine how far this clause is to be applied.
Prof., the whole story of my question is should we be installing an alarm warning sounder in each room since it could be considered a fire compartment?
-
Does anyone out there know the BS definition of a fire compartment?
Hi Wiz
This is the BS definition of Fire Compartment ( extract BS4422 latest)
An enclosed space, which may be subdivided/separated from adjoining spaces within the building by elements
of construction having a specified fire resistance
Kurnal, I see some parts of the 5588 series do give a defintion of fire compatment and some parts don't.
Ricardooooooooooo, thanks for your reply.
Based on the definition of a 'fire compartment' that you have provided, and applying it to the 5839 recommendation I initially mentioned, it would seem that a fire alarm sounder needs to be installed in each room even if the sounder pressure level test is sufficient without a sounder in the room!
Would anyone like to disagree before I rush out and buy vast shares in Cooper Lighting, Cranford and Klaxon!
-
That's why BS5839 needs a special 'Fire Dictionary' or 'Fire Glossary'! :)
Fire compartment could be 'Fire Section' = fire room, fire partition...etc
other than that I don't know :)
Benz, 5839-1 2002 does contain a section entitled 'terms and definitions' with 63 entries, but not an entry for 'fire compartment'
You may propose it to BS committee, so next time they review BS5839 part 1, they may take it into consideration, and introduce it into the ‘terms and definitions’ section, they may first reply with:
‘Thank you, we welcome comments from professionals, in the field...etc’
-
No Wiz - in any case not every room has fire resisting construction separating it from other rooms. Not every floor is a compartment floor- very few of them are in some builings.
I would think it sensible to provide a minimum of one sounder in each fire compartment (as understood in the Approved Document B or BS5588 where specified or BS whatever,) where the fire alarm system is designed to cover those compartments in accordance with the fire strategy and the emergency plan.
The reason for saying this is that the compartmentation lines will invariably co-incide with fire alarm zones, so for resilience of the alarm system and because the elements of structure used to create fire compartments will attenuate the sound levels considerably. Then theres other issues like a staged or phased alarm system will be based around evacuation of compartments.
Thats me common sense answer. I will take a look at the wording of the BS later tonight and see if I can find you the technically correct answer that your diligence deserves.
-
No Wiz - in any case not every room has fire resisting construction separating it from other rooms. Not every floor is a compartment floor- very few of them are in some builings.
I would think it sensible to provide a minimum of one sounder in each fire compartment (as understood in the Approved Document B or BS5588 where specified or BS whatever,) where the fire alarm system is designed to cover those compartments in accordance with the fire strategy and the emergency plan.
The reason for saying this is that the compartmentation lines will invariably co-incide with fire alarm zones, so for resilience of the alarm system and because the elements of structure used to create fire compartments will attenuate the sound levels considerably. Then theres other issues like a staged or phased alarm system will be based around evacuation of compartments.
Thats me common sense answer. I will take a look at the wording of the BS later tonight and see if I can find you the technically correct answer that your diligence deserves.
Prof., thank you for your attention to my query.
Just a couple of points about your last reply.
Obviously it is sensible to install a fire alarm sounder in every fire compartment. This is not the question. Indeed the fire alarm engineers 'bible', BS5839, says we have to!
The question is just what constitutes a fire compartment and how do we recognise it.
Also, your answer talks about 'fire alarm zones' following compartment boundaries. If by this you mean 'detection zones', I would suggest that BS 5839 fire does not actually recommend detection zones follow fire compartment boundaries, in fact it makes no mention whatsoever of the fire-resistance of 'detection zone' boundaries!
If your term 'fire alarm zones' means 'alarm zones' (although this has nothing to do with my original question) then BS recommends only that the boundaries for these comprise of 'fire-resisting construction' and not that these boundaries are those of 'fire compartments' in the terms that you are describing them as having.
Having now looked for the use of the term of 'fire compartment' in other recommendations of BS5839, it would appear that there is no clear precise definition of it that can be worked out from those recommendations. It would also appear to me that the term is often used to describe an area with boundaries of any level of fire resistance, so if this is the case, then in light of my original question it would appear that BS is quite clearly recommending an alarm sounder in every room!
-
It would also appear to me that the term is often used to describe an area with boundaries of any level of fire resistance, so if this is the case, then in light of my original question it would appear that BS is quite clearly recommending an alarm sounder in every room!
No Dr Wiz it absolutely and definately is not saying that.
Our good friend Monsieur Ricardo correctly pointed out that there is a BS 4422 that provides the official vocabulary for fire safety terms in relation to fire alarm systems. This was last revised in 2005 and the link on the BSI website is no longer available, but the previous version is still there to be seen
http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000000216671
At the time BS5839 was last updated the 1990 version of BS4422 would have been current , and it is in this document that the appropriate definition was set out.
Now making sense of that definition is not straightforward because whilst the Building Regulations Approvd Documents, and the equivalent design templates such as the old BS5588 or for hospitals the HTMs set out basic recommendations for the subdivision of a building into compartments, Other interests may also influence and vary this including engineered solutions and insurance requirements.
Thats why its absolutely vital for each new building to have a predetermined fire strategy upon which the fire alarm designer will base their fire alarm design.
Sorry I was a little flippant and careless with my responses yesterday, was giving off the cuff responses rather than fully considered answers. Hope this has helped a little this time. I think we both need double medication tonight.
-
People are reading way too much into this recommendation, which does not, as suggested, say you have to, as all of BS 5839-1 is only a set of recommendations. Forget the definition of fire compartment as it will not really help here. This is just a throwaway line that meant people to use a bit of common sense and not, say, within a big open plan floor or an entire floor of a biggish building put just one sounder even if it might just about reach the SPL, so that there was not total dependence on a single sounder. Now that there is a product standard for sounders, it is probably debatable as to how strictly this RECOMMENDATION need be interpreted in any case, particularly if the sounders are solid state devices.
-
People are reading way too much into this recommendation, which does not, as suggested, say you have to, as all of BS 5839-1 is only a set of recommendations. Forget the definition of fire compartment as it will not really help here. This is just a throwaway line that meant people to use a bit of common sense and not, say, within a big open plan floor or an entire floor of a biggish building put just one sounder even if it might just about reach the SPL, so that there was not total dependence on a single sounder. Now that there is a product standard for sounders, it is probably debatable as to how strictly this RECOMMENDATION need be interpreted in any case, particularly if the sounders are solid state devices.
Colin, I think you may have misunderstood the original point that I made. In fact, you appear to be looking at in quite the reverse way from what I was originally suggesting.
I was not saying the recommendation was for only one sounder not matter the size of the room, but instead that every room might need at least one sounder based on the recommendation of BS 5839 part 1 2002 Clause 16.2.1 i) - At least one sounder should be provided in each fire compartment.
This was based on the premise that each room might be considered a fire compartment!
I fully take on board the point about 'recommendations' and I will be responding to Professor Kurnal's last post after this, and hopefully this will explain, more fully, the main reason for my original post. and why your comment; 'People are reading way too much into this recommendation....' is spot on!
-
It would also appear to me that the term is often used to describe an area with boundaries of any level of fire resistance, so if this is the case, then in light of my original question it would appear that BS is quite clearly recommending an alarm sounder in every room!
No Dr Wiz it absolutely and definately is not saying that.
Our good friend Monsieur Ricardo correctly pointed out that there is a BS 4422 that provides the official vocabulary for fire safety terms in relation to fire alarm systems. This was last revised in 2005 and the link on the BSI website is no longer available, but the previous version is still there to be seen
http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000000216671
At the time BS5839 was last updated the 1990 version of BS4422 would have been current , and it is in this document that the appropriate definition was set out.
Now making sense of that definition is not straightforward because whilst the Building Regulations Approvd Documents, and the equivalent design templates such as the old BS5588 or for hospitals the HTMs set out basic recommendations for the subdivision of a building into compartments, Other interests may also influence and vary this including engineered solutions and insurance requirements.
Thats why its absolutely vital for each new building to have a predetermined fire strategy upon which the fire alarm designer will base their fire alarm design.
Sorry I was a little flippant and careless with my responses yesterday, was giving off the cuff responses rather than fully considered answers. Hope this has helped a little this time. I think we both need double medication tonight.
Prof., the double medication you suggested kicked in this morning and resulted in me being in an unfit state to reply to you until now!
I must take issue with your comment " No Dr Wiz it absolutely and definately is not saying that.".
I believe that the problem is that it definately appears to be saying that, although I agree it probably doesn't mean to say that ! And this is why I started the thread!
I never really thought the BS meant to recommend a sounder in every room, but I am suggesting the use of the words 'in every fire compartment' could easily be understood as 'every room' since many people would consider, and even other BS recommendations intimate, that a room can be a fire compartment!
The lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a 'fire compartment' in this BS is partly due to no definition being provided in the Terms and Definitions section of the BS.
Furthermore, 'Googled' searches for definitions provides answers that conflict with your defintion.
Furthermore, your link leads to a list of fire system definitions that has been withdrawn!
How can anyone know what a fire compartment means in this recommendation?
I am not disagreeing with your understanding of this BS recommendation, in fact I feel you must be absolutely correct. However I maintain that the recommendation is confusing and that is actually why I originally highlighted it and offered it open for discussion.
Hopefully, the discussion has reduced some of the potential confusion, although I doubt this is the case since the 'fire compartment' definition has not really been resolved.
I'm now off to the banter bar to partake in a double-dose of absinthe and lucozade - Please serve it to me in tall cocktail glass, old chap!
-
Wiz. I know you were not suggesting that there be one sounder on a floor-I was trying to explain that the wording is intended simply to prevent anyone from doing something quite so nonsensical. The definition of fire compartment under building regs and BS 4422 etc is all really irrelevant. The recommendation was never meant to be quite that precise. It was simply meant to be a commonsense bit of general guidance. BS 5839-1 is not designed to be a precise specification, though it was made much closer to one in 2002 by use of practice specification format. But there are still some points of guidance that are just that, and that are not intended to be taken as literally as people are trying to take them. Trust me on this!
-
Ah Wiz! Do you not see that is is but a fiendish plot by those who write the standards to ensure a regular and steady income for themselves as expert witnesses when the meaning is tested in court.
Otherwise you are absolutely right. Some overpaid barrister whose only interest is winning the case for their client irresepective of the rights and wrongs will latch upon such wording and confusion inherent in all of the standards, guidance and legislation and will exploit those of us who have to stand on our own to feet and work for a living trying to understand the mess, We have to determine what is a reasonable and appropriate standard for that particular installation or situation.
We have to work at the front end and apply forsight - whereas this will then be tested and examined by those who have the benefit of hindsight and all the time in the world to examine our decisions in minutae at our expense.
Meanwhile the BSI, ISO et al think they are doing the world a service by churning out endless and overpriced standards and guidance that are in fact full of holes, errors, confusion and mistakes and incapaple of clear interpretation.
Trouble is few can afford to buy them all, none of us who have to go out there and earn an honest crust by actually doing some work at the sharp end can afford the time to absorb and understand all the ramifications - and market forces and clients pockets are always a further limiting factor.
I dont think I have ever seen a fire alarm installation that conforms to BS5839 part 1 in total never mind the interpretations that could be placed upon it.
I continue to rely my naive belief in common sense and my (not insubstantial) gut feelings, together with a smattering of experience to do my job and hopefully hit the benchmark standard to keep me out of jail.
-
Wiz. I know you were not suggesting that there be one sounder on a floor-I was trying to explain that the wording is intended simply to prevent anyone from doing something quite so nonsensical. The definition of fire compartment under building regs and BS 4422 etc is all really irrelevant. The recommendation was never meant to be quite that precise. It was simply meant to be a commonsense bit of general guidance. BS 5839-1 is not designed to be a precise specification, though it was made much closer to one in 2002 by use of practice specification format. But there are still some points of guidance that are just that, and that are not intended to be taken as literally as people are trying to take them. Trust me on this!
Colin. Thanks for your reply.
I take on-board everything you have said about the BS recommendations being guidance and not everything should be taken literally, but it is these recommendations that the 'jobsworths' refer to when they are picking holes in a design or installation.
In respect of the recommendation that these posts refer to, i.e BS 5839 part 1 2002 Clause 16.2.1 i) - At least one sounder should be provided in each fire compartment. I would now respectfully suggest that this recommendation is at the very least confusing and, based on your comments, probably superfluous.
Since the other BS recommendations relating to minimum sound pressure, automatically ensures that there should be enough alarm warning sounders in all areas of the building, then the confusing superfluous recommendation "At least one sounder should be provided in each fire compartment" might now need to be removed from future revisions. (please note that this opinion is not meant to be disrespectful to those who originally included this recommendation!)
-
Ah Wiz! Do you not see that is is but a fiendish plot by those who write the standards to ensure a regular and steady income for themselves as expert witnesses when the meaning is tested in court.
Otherwise you are absolutely right. Some overpaid barrister whose only interest is winning the case for their client irresepective of the rights and wrongs will latch upon such wording and confusion inherent in all of the standards, guidance and legislation and will exploit those of us who have to stand on our own to feet and work for a living trying to understand the mess, We have to determine what is a reasonable and appropriate standard for that particular installation or situation.
We have to work at the front end and apply forsight - whereas this will then be tested and examined by those who have the benefit of hindsight and all the time in the world to examine our decisions in minutae at our expense.
Meanwhile the BSI, ISO et al think they are doing the world a service by churning out endless and overpriced standards and guidance that are in fact full of holes, errors, confusion and mistakes and incapaple of clear interpretation.
Trouble is few can afford to buy them all, none of us who have to go out there and earn an honest crust by actually doing some work at the sharp end can afford the time to absorb and understand all the ramifications - and market forces and clients pockets are always a further limiting factor.
I dont think I have ever seen a fire alarm installation that conforms to BS5839 part 1 in total never mind the interpretations that could be placed upon it.
I continue to rely my naive belief in common sense and my (not insubstantial) gut feelings, together with a smattering of experience to do my job and hopefully hit the benchmark standard to keep me out of jail.
Prof. K. I fully agree with your comments.
I promise to come and visit you in prison, unless, of course, I am in a different prison myself at the same time!
In fact half of the Firenet population might all be rounded up and imprisoned 'for failure to understand the authority's 'official jobsworth' representative's own interpretation of the multitude of daily-issued confusing laws, recommendations and guidance documents' :)
-
Since the other BS recommendations relating to minimum sound pressure, automatically ensures that there should be enough alarm warning sounders in all areas of the building,
This is what I was trying to convay earlier in the thread but now I am beginning to question if the clause was to ensure the loss of a sounder (through fault or malice) outside the "fire compartment" so that it did not affect the audibility inside the "fire compartment"
-
Since the other BS recommendations relating to minimum sound pressure, automatically ensures that there should be enough alarm warning sounders in all areas of the building,
This is what I was trying to convay earlier in the thread but now I am beginning to question if the clause was to ensure the loss of a sounder (through fault or malice) outside the "fire compartment" so that it did not affect the audibility inside the "fire compartment"
I don't think so GregC. The recommendation talks about 'at least' one. So one would be sufficient for the recommendation. Surely, it would need 'more than' one to meet your possible interpretation.
-
In fact half of the Firenet population might all be rounded up and imprisoned 'for failure to understand the authority's 'official jobsworth' representative's own interpretation of the multitude of daily-issued confusing laws, recommendations and guidance documents' :)
I quite agree. Lets get a few of them locked up - I suggest we start with that Davidrh fellow who had the audacity to ask some awkward questions and started rocking the boat. Then we will put Benz in solitary with only a slide rule for company so he can go nano on anon anon anon. Cleveland could have a cell with a bucket to save him going outside, cat could have a flap on the door and Sgt Houston would have a proper job to do instead of hounding pensioners for breaching the rules on PC.
-
Kurnal, your view of standards is uncharacteristically pompous. It is your JOB to use common sense to interpret guidance- BS 5839-1 makes it clear that it is intended to be used by competent persons, not supermarket shelf packers for whom every detail needs to be set out in tablets of stone. It is also your job to spend time and money keeping up to date if you are selling sevices. If you went to a private doctor you would expect them to have spent time and money keeping up to date with technology and gudiance, rather than relying on guidance notes they used in the NHS 20 years ago before they retired and set themselves up as consultants.
-
Wiz, you are probably correct in that, in this day and age, when people still seem totally incapable of appying common sense to simple points of principles, the rec. could be removed to make life easy for the would be experts simply to follow more definitive recs blindly without any understanding of the principles. Greg, No this was not at all the intention. The intention was as described in my earlier postings , and is something of a hang over from the earlier version of BS 5839-1, which was written more like a text book, rather than in what is known as practice specification format.
-
Ah Wiz! Do you not see that is is but a fiendish plot by those who write the standards to ensure a regular and steady income for themselves as expert witnesses when the meaning is tested in court.
Otherwise you are absolutely right. Some overpaid barrister whose only interest is winning the case for their client irresepective of the rights and wrongs will latch upon such wording and confusion inherent in all of the standards, guidance and legislation and will exploit those of us who have to stand on our own to feet and work for a living trying to understand the mess, We have to determine what is a reasonable and appropriate standard for that particular installation or situation.
We have to work at the front end and apply forsight - whereas this will then be tested and examined by those who have the benefit of hindsight and all the time in the world to examine our decisions in minutae at our expense.
Meanwhile the BSI, ISO et al think they are doing the world a service by churning out endless and overpriced standards and guidance that are in fact full of holes, errors, confusion and mistakes and incapaple of clear interpretation.
Trouble is few can afford to buy them all, none of us who have to go out there and earn an honest crust by actually doing some work at the sharp end can afford the time to absorb and understand all the ramifications - and market forces and clients pockets are always a further limiting factor.
I dont think I have ever seen a fire alarm installation that conforms to BS5839 part 1 in total never mind the interpretations that could be placed upon it.
I continue to rely my naive belief in common sense and my (not insubstantial) gut feelings, together with a smattering of experience to do my job and hopefully hit the benchmark standard to keep me out of jail.
Spot on....
-
If you think the fire standards are a rip off you should look at the mess the Intruder industry is in, no sooner have you purchased a set of standards to comply with the inspectorates requirements than a circular is issued to say they have been replaced or are due for replacement.
It is important to keep up with standards and practises but there has to be some (wiz forgive me) Common sense applied, I have walked away from jobs where the customer doesnt want to comply yet other contractors, certified to SP203 have carried out non compliant works.
Latest job, electrical contracor doesnt want to install containment, wants us to throw the cables in above false cielings and he will sort out fixings at a later date, our response is no we cant do that, we have a site meeting on Monday to discuss why we are now delaying the project, rock and hard place springs to mind.