FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: GB on September 16, 2009, 09:33:33 PM
-
I have an 'extra care' facility or sheltered / residential care hybrid development where the client wants to put soft furnishings e.g sofa chairs etc in the common areas. This includes corridors and circulation areas.
He cites the RRO guides where a small amount of combustibles is hinted at but not defined.
I am used to keeping MoE sterile as much as possible. Can anyone point me to the sections within the RRO guides applicable? ???
-
Make sure its fire retardant, its probably a no smoking area anyway but put signage up in the area, make sure it doesn’t impede the routes to safety which includes wheel chairs , ensure that there are means to prevent unauthorised intrusion into the premises. Where’s the problem if controlled and kept to a minimum, it might even take away an institutionalised appearance
-
I have an 'extra care' facility or sheltered / residential care hybrid development where the client wants to put soft furnishings e.g sofa chairs etc in the common areas. This includes corridors and circulation areas.
He cites the RRO guides where a small amount of combustibles is hinted at but not defined.
I am used to keeping MoE sterile as much as possible. Can anyone point me to the sections within the RRO guides applicable? ???
I think "small amounts" might mean a cosmetic level rather than converting a common area into a living space and all that that entails. However, as Paul is alluding to, it would very much depend on the level of risk within the area, for example if there are any sources of igniton, the distribution of furnishings and the existance of an alternative means of escape, etc. A risk assessment of the situation would be in order.
-
I wouldn't call a sofa a small amount of combustibles.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/fire/fires/sofa/sofa.html
I believe this will be a USA spec sofa which is not the same standard of foam as a UK sofa, but even a UK sofa will burn well once something gets it going. (Ask any of the operational/ex-operational guys here.) In my opinion it is a fire you can't afford to have in a common area, particularly in a place with any element of residential care.
-
Just to add weight, I have to agree completely with Civvy here. I couldn't rest easy if I knew an escape route had been turned into a room and bedrooms had been turned into inner rooms.
The small amount of combustibles that might be allowed would be along the lines of a few chairs without upholstery, a pot plant or two and, at a push, maybe a coffee table with a very limited and well managed number of magazines (i.e. one Beano and two leaflets on funeral plans).
Stu
-
I don;t think GB was talking about making an escape route into a lounge and making rooms into inner rooms. Why we do we always have to exaggerate and assume someone is going to transform things into time bomb waiting to go off. The sort of thing I think GB was making is whether a small area can be set aside within a common area to make the place more homely and not stuffing it with masses of combustible furniture, tv sets etc. This sort of request should be risk assessed with many considerations and not just applying blanket statements to it.
-
This includes corridors and circulation areas.
Yes and on a risk assessed basis I will say without a doubt that you should remove all fully uphostered sofas and chairs from the escape corridors in a res/extra care home.
-
Sorry thats not a risk assessment thats a blanket statement....the easy route
-
Generally I agree with Civvy ( I wouldn't say without doubt) - but in a Extra care shletered scheme scenarios combustibles in escape routes are not only undesirable but could compromise the evacuation strategy and means of escape severely
Paul I take your point about risk assessing the scenario, but in my view, however remote the chance of a fire occurring may be in the common areas, the consequences of a fire therein would be catastrophic. Often these places (extra care) are not staffed during the night, so early intervention of a small fire is unlikely.
-
I would also agree that furniture of this nature should not be in any common areas.
Just look at the recent hooha regarding the potted plants and door mats in common areas, which was probably a bit over the top.
With regadards to the standard of the sofas it is illegal in the UK to sell non compliant domestic furniture so not sure how you may have the american standards?
-
Howabout in a fully sprinklered building then?
-
Sheltered housing providers like seating areas in commumal spaces as it gives old people a place to rest between their doors and the lift, if they struggle to get about, and tend not to treat them as additional social spaces. Once that happens, you end up with bookcases, lamps and other items appearing (including random chairs that occupants don't want, which may not comply with current fire regs).
BS 5588 pt 1 does allow for seating areas in common corridors in certain situations (not in dead ends, cross corridor doors separating it, no dwellings open onto it, width not less than 1m etc).
-
If there are no sources of ignition in the area what is the problem? Keep conbustibles separated from ignition sources and there will be no fire. Assess the area looking at the potential for any fire and the likelihood / chance of having a fire and the potential consequences then take it from there.
As long as the fire load is kept to a minimum and the escape route is not impeded, there is an arguement to allow furniture complying with The F&F Regs allowing the od folk to rest during there walk to and from destinations when required and keeping the place less like an institution.
They shouldn't be used for long term sitting. There are Lounges or day rooms for that.
-
Maybe I was just trying to cause a bit of trouble with the 'without a doubt' remark. I seem to be going out of my way to antagonise people at the moment. ;)
FSO, the chances are that even in a sprinklered building the corridor would be impassable should the worst happen. And to me, all the different levels of impassable are still impassable. (Look at recent determinations regarding bedrooms as inner rooms in sprinklered apartments.) Having an escape route that cannot be used is certainly not supplying a suitable means of escape. Something like water mist that is designed to extinguish the fire might be more acceptable to some.
Jayjay, I don't care how they use it, I care about the fire loading. The USA standard only comes into it regarding the pictures. NIST is an american institute, so the sofa in the test will be of USA standards. I'll have a look and see if BRE have done anything if it matters that much.
Novascot, you should help rewrite the HTM documents, hospitals would seem much less bare and clinical then. Regarding people who have to rest on their way back to the room, doesn't the limited mobility of these people mean we should be veering towards better protection for them? I am not talking about not allowing them any form of seat to rest their legs, just fully upholstered 'sofa-chairs' and the like.
IMO too many people (Generally us non-firefighter types who haven't seen a fire retardant chair going like the clappers) think that just because something is fire resistant that it isn't a problem. Maybe an appreciation of all that it has to do to pass the BS476 tests might help.
-
I'm not trying to creep up to you Civvy but, again, I have to fully support your comments here.
I don;t think GB was talking about making an escape route into a lounge and making rooms into inner rooms. Why we do we always have to exaggerate and assume someone is going to transform things into time bomb waiting to go off. The sort of thing I think GB was making is whether a small area can be set aside within a common area to make the place more homely and not stuffing it with masses of combustible furniture, tv sets etc. This sort of request should be risk assessed with many considerations and not just applying blanket statements to it.
Paul, you should be quite clear that putting fire load into an escape route makes it, for fire safety purposes, a room; and rooms off it, inner rooms. Maybe it doesn't matter what you call it, a "room" or a "fire loaded corridor", but the principle is equivalent to it being a room.
Howabout in a fully sprinklered building then?
Civvy's answered this for you but a very thorough analysis and discussion of the issues involved can be found in the BRE report 204505 "Effectiveness of sprinklers in residential premises". You can get this freely on-line but I think you have to register with the BRE. It may also be available via the CLG site. And while you're there also look at BRE report BD2546 "Sprinkler Effectiveness in Care Homes", also free.
If there are no sources of ignition in the area what is the problem? Keep conbustibles separated from ignition sources and there will be no fire. Assess the area looking at the potential for any fire and the likelihood / chance of having a fire and the potential consequences then take it from there.
You're missing the point here and Retty has already, earlier in the thread, covered this. Any risk assessment, you will agree, is about balancing likelihood against possible consequences. In this case, as is usually the case with fire risk assessments, the possible consequences are the worst you can get and, therefore, the only way to deal with the risk is to all but eliminate the likelihood. Leaving a readily ignitable fire load in a corridor, irrespective of whether any potential ignition source is apparent or not, does not go far enough towards eliminating the likelihood. Removal of the readily ignitable fire load would, for me, virtually remove the possibility of the severe consequences occurring.
If the fire loading material was not in a readily ignitable form, such as un-upholstered chairs, I don't think many would be worried about it.
As long as the fire load is kept to a minimum and the escape route is not impeded, there is an arguement to allow furniture complying with The F&F Regs
There may be an argument, but it's a very poor one.
What is this minimum level of fire loading you're going to allow? One sofa? Will that not make the escape route impassable if it's on fire?
Stu
-
Walk into a hosptital, notice the reception desk, notice the soft furnishings around it it, notice the corridors giving access to the treatment rooms with soft seating immediate outside. look up and see the fire exit signage within these areas. Shall we take all of them out, ensure all the walls are concrete blocks, take the carpets up and have concrete floors and what about those perishing pictures they have adornong the walls with wooden frames....my goodness I seem to be describing an inferno just waiting to be triggered. The serious point here is that you'll never see any escape route in the premises you describe thats totally free of combustioble materials including the occasionally chair. Look at the bigger picture and risk assess it or can we just sit at home on the end of a phone doing a fire risk assessment because its no more than just applying codes
-
I have an 'extra care' facility or sheltered / residential care hybrid development where the client wants to put soft furnishings e.g sofa chairs etc in the common areas. This includes corridors and circulation areas.
He cites the RRO guides where a small amount of combustibles is hinted at but not defined.
I am used to keeping MoE sterile as much as possible. Can anyone point me to the sections within the RRO guides applicable? ???
Your client is looking at paragraph 1.11 of the guidance.
IMO it depends on tha area served by the corridor. If it is a corridor directly serving accommodation units or bedrooms I would insist it is kept sterile.
If its in a general circulation area onto which no accommodation units or bedrooms open directly, (ie there is a fire door separating the corridor from the area involved) and any accommodation that connects with this circulation area has an alternative MOE then you could be a little more relaxed.
-
FSO, the chances are that even in a sprinklered building the corridor would be impassable should the worst happen. And to me, all the different levels of impassable are still impassable. (Look at recent determinations regarding bedrooms as inner rooms in sprinklered apartments.) Having an escape route that cannot be used is certainly not supplying a suitable means of escape. Something like water mist that is designed to extinguish the fire might be more acceptable to some.
So clearly ADB is wrong about not having self closers on resi care rooms fitted with sprinklers then?
I dont see a big issue in a sprinklered building, providing the furniture complies to 7176 or a similar standard.
-
FSO, are you trying to say that a sprinkler system stops CO HCL HCN etc from being produced? Unless you are going to fully extinguish the fire, these things will still be produced.
ADB also says that you should take into account of the need to manually close the doors during sleeping hours. Is this because the sprinklers fail to perform as well at night or because it is recognised that sprinklers are not the be-all and end all of fire safety?
Working on the ADB example, I will 'allow' chairs. So long as you remove them every night.
-
FSO, are you trying to say that a sprinkler system stops CO HCL HCN etc from being produced? Unless you are going to fully extinguish the fire, these things will still be produced.
ADB also says that you should take into account of the need to manually close the doors during sleeping hours. Is this because the sprinklers fail to perform as well at night or because it is recognised that sprinklers are not the be-all and end all of fire safety?
Working on the ADB example, I will 'allow' chairs. So long as you remove them every night.
No Civvy that is not what I am saying at all. The point I am trying to make is that ADB relaxes the self operation of a physical fire gas barrier when fire suppression is fitted. So ADB must assume it, not me.
Clearly I accept that doors should be kept shut at night as the response times will be longer, so is it saying fires do not occur during the day??
What are we trying to stop here, fires starting in common areas or mitigate fire spread? There is a clear difference.
If the risk is managed to an acceptable level with the appropriate standard of furnishings, no sources of ignition, well tranined staff and good procedures.....how large is the issue? Especially in a premises with a fitted fire suppression system.
I can understand the risk based approach here and the location should be considered for its suitability e.g not on dead ends etc, but sometimes I feel we should apply some common sense.
Incidently, I have attended a few fires in sprinklered buildings where there has been a small fire (im not talking warehouses here) and the fire has been pretty much extinguished prior to our arrival.
-
Well said FSO, you sound like a fire risk assessor that looks at the bigger picture
-
Incidently, I have attended a few fires in sprinklered buildings where there has been a small fire (im not talking warehouses here) and the fire has been pretty much extinguished prior to our arrival.
I am sure that will often be the case.
We have many years of statistics regarding sprinkler systems. The success rate for non-life-safety systems controlling or extinguishing the fire is about 95%. So 1 in 20 you are looking at a potentially large problem unless you fit a full BS EN 12845 life safety system which drastically reduces this rate of failure due to the redundancy inherent in the system. Even then you are looking at designing it to a design fire size, as even though it is acknowledged that the fire will often be extinguished, or at the very least kept very small, we still need to safety margin to allow for the unusual/unlikely events that DO occur, given enough fires.
-
Walk into a hosptital, notice the reception desk, notice the soft furnishings around it it, notice the corridors giving access to the treatment rooms with soft seating immediate outside.
Notice the alternative exit routes separated by fire resisting doors....
I can understand the risk based approach here and the location should be considered for its suitability e.g not on dead ends etc, but sometimes I feel we should apply some common sense.
Talking of common sense... FSO and Paul, I think you have to ask yourselves, what is a dead end?
Might it be a location in a building from which there is only one route out?
Do you think dead ends are critical because, if you lose that singular exit route to a fire, any people on the wrong side of it will be in a severe pickle?
Do you think that this principle might apply to people in rooms whose only escape route is out through the corridor that contains ignitable fire loading? Might such people be considered to be in a dead end?
I think there is a chance that you are being led towards accepting an unsatisfactory level of safety because you have seen furnishings in corridors in similar premises but you have failed to notice that such areas are separated from escape routes by FR construction and doors. (Paul, your comments about hospitals indicate this). Yes, part of one escape route might have furnishings in it but there will always be an alternative route that obviates the need to pass through that fire loaded area.
It is simply not acceptable to have soft furnishings in the only escape route from bedrooms in a building such as we are discussing here. And I re-iterate, as Civvy has done, sprinklers make no difference. Reference to the previously mentioned documents will make this clear.
Look at the bigger picture and risk assess it or can we just sit at home on the end of a phone doing a fire risk assessment because its no more than just applying codes
It's not code hugging, it's collective wisdom based on rigorous and broad research. It's tried and tested.
You are doing yourselves and the whole fire safety industry a dis-service if you take it upon yourselves to lower fire safety standards the way you are proposing. You are also leaving yourselves open if anything should ever go wrong in the future in one of the buildings where you have allowed safety to drop against the weight of all fire safety guidance.
Stu
-
Mind you when you are in a normal bedroom, for example, containing all sorts of combustibles, you are in a dead end condition. In a fire situation your escape route starts from where you are are.
-
Mind you when you are in a normal bedroom, for example, containing all sorts of combustibles, you are in a dead end condition. In a fire situation your escape route starts from where you are are.
Ha ha ok. But that's what travel distance limitations in rooms are all about.
Stu
-
Phoenix, You have missed the point I'm making. I can assure you I have asked for stuff to be moved from escape routes in the past but I do not make blanket statements on the issue. I do understand about dead-end situations, single directions of travel and the potential hazards of placing combustible items on escape routes but there are situations and conditions where this can be relaxed, surely.
-
Mind you when you are in a normal bedroom, for example, containing all sorts of combustibles, you are in a dead end condition. In a fire situation your escape route starts from where you are are.
Ha ha ok. But that's what travel distance limitations in rooms are all about.
Stu
Yes. A dead end condition. If you can travel in one direction only, no matter where you are, you are in a dead end. If it is more than 18M travel distance, according to practically all the guides, and maybe a bit more in factories, you need an alternative.
-
Phoenix, You have missed the point I'm making. I can assure you I have asked for stuff to be moved from escape routes in the past but I do not make blanket statements on the issue. I do understand about dead-end situations, single directions of travel and the potential hazards of placing combustible items on escape routes but there are situations and conditions where this can be relaxed, surely.
Of course there are, Paul. But the scenario presented here, without further mitigating circumstances, is not one that would normally be accepted. The actual case that started this thread, or any other similar case, may have such mitigating circumstances that would vary the requirements.
This forum is good for exploring diverse and opposing attitudes and perceptions, and it would be a naive person who posted what he (she) believed to be an absolute truth without expecting ten people to shoot it down in flames.
But there are standards.
Stu
-
Would you be worried if it was metal furniture then?
-
Not at all, provided it didn't obstruct any route. Heavy timber furniture (not upholstered) can be ok, provided it's in limited quantities, because it's not readily ignitable, but you have to watch out for tables or anything similar that can become a respository for magazines and papers. The staff might swear blind that no papers or books will be allowed to accumulate there, but go back after a year and time will tell a different story.
Stu
-
Whats actually the concern then?
A fire starting in the common areas or a fire spreading from an adjacent room?
-
A fire in the escape route. Adjacent rooms have doors that can be shut.
-
The simple fact here is that we are not talking about an occupancy who can get up and walk out of the place unaided the second they hear an alarm. Now unless you can remove all sources of ignition (difficult while you have to supply normal lighting & emergency lighting & also allow people/residents in the building) then any sizeable fire loading in an escape corridor is a potential fire in an escape corridor, and in the circumstances IMO it is an intolerable risk.
-
Thankyou, Civvy.
-
A fire in the escape route. Adjacent rooms have doors that can be shut.
Where is the fire coming from then? A light fitting? How about low energy lighting.
Incidently, have you ever tried setting fire to a well maintained peice of furniture that conforms to 7176? Trust me it does not go.
I really cannot see an issue in a well managed premises especially if fire suppression is fitted. In actual fact, I seem to remember an instructor from the FPA who shared the same sentiments when I completed the complex risk assessment course a while ago.
I personally cannot see why closers are removed from doors when the premises are sprinklered, but I accept what ADB says.
I feel that we cannot just lay huge generic statements over one type of premises. The whole point of the legislation is that the risk creator will manage their own risk.
I accept that in some circumstances (proberly most) that furniture within common areas are a no no, but lets try and be subjective about the whole thing. :)
-
I seem to remember an instructor from the FPA who shared the same sentiments when I completed the complex risk assessment course a while ago.
Say no more.
I accept that in some circumstances (proberly most) that furniture within common areas are a no no, but lets try and be subjective about the whole thing.
Fair enough.
-
I seem to remember an instructor from the FPA who shared the same sentiments when I completed the complex risk assessment course a while ago.
Say no more.
Actually, on reflection, I agree. ;)
-
Incidently, have you ever tried setting fire to a well maintained peice of furniture that conforms to 7176? Trust me it does not go.
It is clearly people like you who we are trying to protect the residents from!
-
Incidently, have you ever tried setting fire to a well maintained peice of furniture that conforms to 7176? Trust me it does not go.
It is clearly people like you who we are trying to protect the residents from!
ROTFLMAO :D :D :D