FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Benzerari on November 08, 2008, 12:17:10 AM
-
Would it be possible to apply some countries or state's fire safety standards, to any other given country, regardless of the political decision, I mean just from technical point of view?
If Yes! State why?
If No! State why?
Thank you
-
It seems globalization has affected every thing..., except fire and safety standards and codes ?
-
In NFPA standards i.e. the smoke detectors spacing coverage is 30 feet, roughly = 10m of radius coverage, while in BS 5839 it's just 7.5 m, it is quite remarkable difference?
It‘s 25% difference?
-
It seems globalization has affected every thing..., except fire and safety standards and codes ?
good. Have you seen fire systems when you go abroad?
-
In NFPA standards i.e. the smoke detectors spacing coverage is 30 feet, roughly = 10m of radius coverage, while in BS 5839 it's just 7.5 m, it is quite remarkable difference?
It‘s 25% difference?
B enz
In a square and uniform room the detector spacing is 10 metres between each detector under the BS - are you confusing your spacing with radius here??
-
In NFPA standards i.e. the smoke detectors spacing coverage is 30 feet, roughly = 10m of radius coverage, while in BS 5839 it's just 7.5 m, it is quite remarkable difference?
It‘s 25% difference?
B enz
In a square and uniform room the detector spacing is 10 metres between each detector under the BS - are you confusing your spacing with radius here??
indeed there are specific spacing for square and/or rectangle rooms, but the general radius coverage is 7.5m, and between two detectors is 15m not 10m... etc, but this is not the main issue... etc
The main question is as quoted above :)
-
In NFPA standards i.e. the smoke detectors spacing coverage is 30 feet, roughly = 10m of radius coverage, while in BS 5839 it's just 7.5 m, it is quite remarkable difference?
It‘s 25% difference?
B enz
In a square and uniform room the detector spacing is 10 metres between each detector under the BS - are you confusing your spacing with radius here??
indeed there are specific spacing for square and/or rectangle rooms, but the general radius coverage is 7.5m, and between two detectors is 15m not 10m... etc, but this is not the main issue... etc
The main question is as quoted above :)
Sorry Benz but have to disagree there.It's given that (in the case of a smoke detector) that the maximum distance between the detector and any given point in a protected area (under a flat ceiling) is 7.5 metres.Taking that the furthest point in an area is to the corner (as per pythagoris) then the "radius" must extend outside the protected area to cover the corners.To achieve this a distance no more than 10 metres between detectors can accomodate this (excluding corridors where you can go up to 15 metres if it does not exceed 2 metres in width).
-
B enz
In a square and uniform room the detector spacing is 10 metres between each detector under the BS - are you confusing your spacing with radius here??
indeed there are specific spacing for square and/or rectangle rooms, but the general radius coverage is 7.5m, and between two detectors is 15m not 10m... etc, but this is not the main issue... etc
The main question is as quoted above :)
Sorry Benz but have to disagree there.It's given that (in the case of a smoke detector) that the maximum distance between the detector and any given point in a protected area (under a flat ceiling) is 7.5 metres.Taking that the furthest point in an area is to the corner (as per pythagoris) then the "radius" must extend outside the protected area to cover the corners.To achieve this a distance no more than 10 metres between detectors can accomodate this (excluding corridors where you can go up to 15 metres if it does not exceed 2 metres in width).
Indeed, but this is not the main issue, the main question is as quoted above :)
-
indeed there are specific spacing for square and/or rectangle rooms, but the general radius coverage is 7.5m, and between two detectors is 15m not 10m... etc, but this is not the main issue... etc
The main question is as quoted above :)
Sorry Benz but have to disagree there.It's given that (in the case of a smoke detector) that the maximum distance between the detector and any given point in a protected area (under a flat ceiling) is 7.5 metres.Taking that the furthest point in an area is to the corner (as per pythagoris) then the "radius" must extend outside the protected area to cover the corners.To achieve this a distance no more than 10 metres between detectors can accomodate this (excluding corridors where you can go up to 15 metres if it does not exceed 2 metres in width).
Indeed, but this is not the main issue, the main question is as quoted above :)
I was only clarifying your concerns/comments on detector spacing - with regards to an international fire standard,well,any standard is only as good as the levels of compliance and judging by how many "professionals" even within the UK can't follow the basics then I don't see the point.
Other than for trading purposes of course.
-
Sorry Benz but have to disagree there.It's given that (in the case of a smoke detector) that the maximum distance between the detector and any given point in a protected area (under a flat ceiling) is 7.5 metres.Taking that the furthest point in an area is to the corner (as per pythagoris) then the "radius" must extend outside the protected area to cover the corners.To achieve this a distance no more than 10 metres between detectors can accomodate this (excluding corridors where you can go up to 15 metres if it does not exceed 2 metres in width).
Indeed, but this is not the main issue, the main question is as quoted above :)
I was only clarifying your concerns/comments on detector spacing - with regards to an international fire standard,well,any standard is only as good as the levels of compliance and judging by how many "professionals" even within the UK can't follow the basics then I don't see the point.
Other than for trading purposes of course.
Of course we have to remember that this is a recommendation. If one has a room 15M by 15M would one detector be sufficient? What about 14M by 14M? 13M by 13M? Or must it be no more than 10M by 10M for one detector? Are fire risks right in the corner of a room? Do we need to sit back, take a breath and start to think about the real world?
Why does one use a rule of thumb for fire extinguishers when the fire load can vary so much but unquestioned science is needed for the level of detection for smoke?
If you are talking about the BS then it is recommended the 7.5M rule applies. In the real world do we have to be that pernickety?
-
Indeed, but this is not the main issue, the main question is as quoted above :)
I was only clarifying your concerns/comments on detector spacing - with regards to an international fire standard,well,any standard is only as good as the levels of compliance and judging by how many "professionals" even within the UK can't follow the basics then I don't see the point.
Other than for trading purposes of course.
Of course we have to remember that this is a recommendation. If one has a room 15M by 15M would one detector be sufficient? What about 14M by 14M? 13M by 13M? Or must it be no more than 10M by 10M for one detector? Are fire risks right in the corner of a room? Do we need to sit back, take a breath and start to think about the real world?
Why does one use a rule of thumb for fire extinguishers when the fire load can vary so much but unquestioned science is needed for the level of detection for smoke?
If you are talking about the BS then it is recommended the 7.5M rule applies. In the real world do we have to be that pernickety?
I don't think that the 7.5 metre rule was pulled out of the air (or maybe I'm too trusting?).
You would have to increase te accepted radius of coverage of a point smoke detector to 10.6 metres if you were to be happy to take one detector for 15 by 15 when in fact you need 3 (225 square metres).
-
This topic wasn't started to discuss detector spacing. I politely request that posters get back on topic.
To answer the question - I'm my opinion, yes. It would be "possible", but most probably very complex to the point of almost impossibility unless the countries are very similar and have for many years adopted the same standards. For example we could not ask a German site to install an alarm system to Category P2 as per BS 5839 because there are no call centres in Germany that would meet the British Standard referenced in 5839. We could not ask a site in Papua New Guinea to instal a system as the components needed are not available.
But if for example UAE used NPFA standards in all buildings over a perdiod of years then it would be possible to apply such a standard. Or we could probably ask a site in the Republic of Ireland to use British Standards.
-
This topic wasn't started to discuss detector spacing. I politely request that posters get back on topic.
To answer the question - I'm my opinion, yes. It would be "possible", but most probably very complex to the point of almost impossibility unless the countries are very similar and have for many years adopted the same standards. For example we could not ask a German site to install an alarm system to Category P2 as per BS 5839 because there are no call centres in Germany that would meet the British Standard referenced in 5839. We could not ask a site in Papua New Guinea to instal a system as the components needed are not available.
But if for example UAE used NPFA standards in all buildings over a perdiod of years then it would be possible to apply such a standard. Or we could probably ask a site in the Republic of Ireland to use British Standards.
Apologies and noted - I have enough trouble getting systems/equipment here to the BS as opposed to IS standards so I doubt that it would work on that basis.
Surely an EN standard is the first step to a harmony of standards?
-
It would seem to make sense that the correct way to prevent a fire in a building in country X should be no different if that same building anywhere else in the world
That we have different standards is likely based on a mixture of reasons such as:-
- Economic Status of country
- Education
- Prosperity
- Style of government
- Fire disaster precedents set
You could introduce international standards across the board but it is unlikely that any countries methods and styles of fire protection would change as it's attitudes and levels towards it are based on the above which do not change overnight.
If fire protection to BS standard was implemented in sweatshops in china then the business would go under in a week, I would guess?
Just my tuppence worth.
-
Why should we try to impose our standards on other nations?
Why not let them decide for themselves their priorites and thresholds of tolerable risk.
This smacks of imperialism.
-
Yes, one countrys' regs can be imposed in another. This is how- for purposes of the armed forces as visitors, in semi or permeant accomodation. Both countries regs are considered. The higher, more stringent must be met where there is difference or confliction of requirements.
Easy examples of these are US visiting forces in Britain and Germany and British Forces in Germany and other locations.
-
Why should we try to impose our standards on other nations?
Why not let them decide for themselves their priorites and thresholds of tolerable risk.
This smacks of imperialism.
It used to be called imperialism in the old days, now it’s ‘Americanization’ in the guise of ‘Globalization’ which affected every bit…etc :lol:
-
As per the original post, what I mean is; technically there are a lot of common points in all local standards..., which can be standardized into one common international draft, but regarding other technical differences that's where the discussion may rely!
-
Whilst there are some common points which could be standardised there is no real political will or need for an "International Standard" to be produced.
As someone already mentioned it has to be down to each country to decide what they deem acceptable based around their own needs, expectations and priorities.
Also certain components or configurations may behave differently depending on local conditions.
Would you for instance need the same type of fire safety regulations covering forests located in a hot dry country where forest fires are commonplace as you would in a cold and damp country where forest fires seldom occur?
-
Whilst there are some common points which could be standardised there is no real political will or need for an "International Standard" to be produced.
As someone already mentioned it has to be down to each country to decide what they deem acceptable based around their own needs, expectations and priorities.
I have initially mentioned that the discussion is from a technical point of view, regardless of the political decisions..., since we are not there to decide on their behalf... etc
-
Would you for instance need the same type of fire safety regulations covering forests located in a hot dry country where forest fires are commonplace as you would in a cold and damp country where forest fires seldom occur?
An 'If ... then ... else...' statement would do the the job Midland retty, why not ? :)
-
Would you for instance need the same type of fire safety regulations covering forests located in a hot dry country where forest fires are commonplace as you would in a cold and damp country where forest fires seldom occur?
An 'If ... then ... else...' statement would do the the job Midland retty, why not ? :)
You could have a statement / policy or procedure that tries to be a "one size fits all" solution, but in reality it would be a very long, stodgy statement / policy / procedure and it probably wouldn't work.
-
Fire is still fire every where..., disability considerations in regards to fire safety should be quite the same every where..., detectors spacing should obviously be the same every where..., the methodology of fire risk assessment shouldn't have any difference..., the gas agent distinguishing fire is almost the same every where apart from the russian experience... etc, and a lot more may be standardized into one international draft... etc
-
Some hotels in the UK have adopted the NFPA standard for hotels.
-
Some hotels in the UK have adopted the NFPA standard for hotels.
Would that be acceptable in this country?
-
That's probably because it is an American hotel chain, with an American insurer. It is often the insurer who specifies the required standard- not necessarily a bad thing. I bet the hotel is sprinklered as well?
-
One remarkable thing about American system is that if alarm goes off for what so ever reason the sprinkler triggers straight away, which may cause a mess... But I haven't seen yet in this country the sprinkler linked to fire alarm system back way, by means the FAS trigger the sprinkler..., I have seen a link one way only.
Forget double knock when it’s different agent such FM200 … etc
Any one else experienced some thing different?
-
No mate, that only happens in James Bond Films. US sprinklers are the same as UK ones.
One other reason that US chains use sprinklers is because US Civil Searvants arent allowed to stay in unsprinklered hotels.
-
No mate, that only happens in James Bond Films. US sprinklers are the same as UK ones.
One other reason that US chains use sprinklers is because US Civil Searvants arent allowed to stay in unsprinklered hotels.
Wee B;
I am not particularly talking about the sprinkler, I agree they are quite the same even every in the world, I amm rather talking about the link between FAS and sprinklers :)
-
Benz each individual sprinkler head is sealed and no sprinkler head will ever open unless the individual sprinkler head is heated up to the necessary temperature - typically 68 degrees C. Only the sprinkler heads directly exposed to the heat will operate- most fires are controlled by one or two heads only.
The system you describe of multiple sprinkler heads controlled by smoke detectors is almost unknown and would only ever be found in specific risk critical industrial process equipment.
-
There may not be systems where the sprinklers are set off by the alarm system, however there are systems where the alarm system can be set off by the sprinklers.
-
Benz each individual sprinkler head is sealed and no sprinkler head will ever open unless the individual sprinkler head is heated up to the necessary temperature - typically 68 degrees C. Only the sprinkler heads directly exposed to the heat will operate- most fires are controlled by one or two heads only.
The system you describe of multiple sprinkler heads controlled by smoke detectors is almost unknown and would only ever be found in specific risk critical industrial process equipment.
So you mean the sprinkler has its own heat sensors then, and can be triggered either manually or through their own heat sensors?
-
each head has either a low temperature soldered strut or a sealed glass bulb filled with liquid (and a bubble). Water will not flow until the solder melts or the glass breaks. When this happens the static pressure in the water pipe falls causing the pumps to start, and after 30 seconds a flow switch sends a message to the fire alarm system.
-
Kurnal;
Do you mean you have never seen a fire alarm system triggered the sprinkler?
-
Conventional sprinkler heads are quite simple - they are open spray nozzles blocked by a plug/cap held in place by either a thin quartzoid bulb of heat sensitive liquid, or various metal struts held together by fusible heat sensitive alloys and unless exposed to sufficient heat (or knocked hard enough!) will not destruct and release the cap/plug.
Smoke detection is used with a pre-action system where pipes are kept dry (either for frost protection or to prevent flooding from accidental damage, the detectors causing the preaction valve to open and charge the pipes with water before the first sprinkler pops, thus giving a speedier response than a true dry pipe system.
Deluge systems or emulsifying systems used with oil filled equipment have a series of open sprinkler heads controlled by a fusible or quartzoid detector (basically like a sprinkler head, but opens a valve in the pipe rather than projecting water). This allows a fast response over a wide area where there is a risk of rapid fire spread.
Older sprinkler installations often just have a water motorised gong as an audible alarm of activation, although it is increasingly common and indeed required in most cases for there to be flow or pressure switches installed to signal a premises' electrical fire alarm system, either as one interface for the whole system (such as to a car park), or several in 'zones' (such as to each shop unit in a covered shopping centre).
Pre-action & deluges systems are rare outside of industrial sites (Thomas Moore Square has a few pre actions, unusual for offices), emulsifying deluges are more common in older sprinklered premises that have or had oil fuelled boilers
-
Kurnal;
Do you mean you have never seen a fire alarm system triggered the sprinkler?
Only on an industrial LPG cylinder filling plant with multiple spray projectors.
-
Right; this is new to me to be honest, I thought American fire alarm systems linked one way to sprinklers to trigger them?
Thanks Kurnal, every day is school day and for ever
-
Older sprinkler installations often just have a water motorised gong as an audible alarm of activation, although it is increasingly common and indeed required in most cases for there to be flow or pressure switches installed to signal a premises' electrical fire alarm system, either as one interface for the whole system (such as to a car park), or several in 'zones' (such as to each shop unit in a covered shopping centre).
They are the one I kept in my mind as I dealt only once in my life with old sprinkler system with a water bell, it was linked back way to the main fire alarm system through the valve..., in fact it was just to use the fire alarm sounders or bells, as it was only one water bell for the sprinkler fitted outside the building...etc
I have really very little knowledge about sprinklers, say 1% or less :(
Thanks Anthony for this brief description
-
Even the latest systems have the old fshioned water driven bell outside, and a pressure switch that links from the pipe feeding the bell to the fire alarm system. Often there are more electrical connections and monitoring systems too. The bell on the wall outside is to alert the fire brigade as to the location of the sprinkler control valve and indicate which system is operating- there are often several together, each with their own bell outside. We look after one warehouse with 11 of these- its impossible to tell outside which bell is ringing so here is a litle tell tale water nozzle and cup inside on each system as a tell tale indicator.
Only the new residential systems do not have this arrangement.
-
In theory, largely impracticable to develop a 'one size fits all', because societal expectation of the 'acceptable' level of safety (and the means to pay for it) varies so very widely throughout the world. Fire-fighting tactics differ, too.
In reality many countries 'adopt' BS, NFPA or whatever (not ENs though?). They just don't expect or enforce compliance!
-
I may introduce this topic differently as follows:
What may be internationally standardized and what may not?
Common points Differences
................... .....................
................... .....................
................... .....................
................... .....................
................... .....................
................... .....................
-
20% of the world can't access clean water to drink. I find it hard to imagine that any fire safety is even a consideration is many countries when there are such greater priorities.
-
20% of the world can't access clean water to drink. I find it hard to imagine that any fire safety is even a consideration is many countries when there are such greater priorities.
Indeed, some others, are just locked up in big prison, no in and out..., we are living in heaven comparing to their life... etc, look at Zimbabwe, Palestine, other African countries..., fire safety is the last thing to think about... etc