FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Mushy on February 05, 2010, 10:22:32 AM
-
Hi all
can anyone remind this auld git of the distances auto detection should be either side of an automatically closing doors. I thought it was about 18 inches...has this been changed to 7.5 metres?!
-
Hi all
can anyone remind this auld git of the distances auto detection should be either side of an automatically closing doors. I thought it was about 18 inches...has this been changed to 7.5 metres?!
BS7273 Pt4 Section 13. Normally 0.5 - 1.5 but with some conditions.
-
I don't know why I said 18 inches when I meant 1.5 metres!...I am getting old...thanks nearly there
-
check out 3.7 in this document
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/efd/maintenance/fire/documents/UCLFire_TN_016.pdf
-
sorry just discovered this thread
http://www.kingfell.com/~forum/index.php?topic=4346.0
-
Can anyone paste on here BS 7273 part 4 Section 13...the company installing the system is saying that they can be 7.5 metres from the doors
-
Mushy
for info, its six pages long with diagrams, suggest you get a copy, its very useful
13.2.4.b appears to be what you want, confirms nearlythere!
davo
-
Can anyone paste on here BS 7273 part 4 Section 13...the company installing the system is saying that they can be 7.5 metres from the doors
Mushy
I'm sure you are aware that 7.5M is a number associated with the distance of the detector from any point in a room for life protection. There is no such number specified for the positioning of detection for automatic door closers.
-
There are two standard relating to auto closing doors
BS 7273-4:2007 - Code of practice for the operation of fire protection measures. Actuation of release mechanisms for doors and the Euro standard BS EN 1155:1997 Building hardware. Electrically powered hold-open devices for swing doors. Requirements and test methods
maybe you should check out both and the Euro one could be easier to understand.
-
nearlythere...yes I am aware of that...and when I told the lad that this is where he was probably getting confused...he wondered off muttering summink :)
anyhow what a day...snapped the ligaments in my finger by tucking my shirt in me trousers so its now at 90 degrees...only I could do that! :-[
cheers davo/tw
-
nearlythere...yes I am aware of that...and when I told the lad that this is where he was probably getting confused...he wondered off muttering summink :)
anyhow what a day...snapped the ligaments in my finger by tucking my shirt in me trousers so its now at 90 degrees...only I could do that! :-[
cheers davo/tw
Now there's a cue for a list of suggestions on what the summink was the lad was muttering.
How's about "That Mushy git has caught me out. I won't make much on this job"
As to how you bent your fingers with your hand pushed down your trousers does not bear thinking about. Cat, any suggestions?
-
The other point to make is that if detection is already in situ then the distances do not matter. It is only where there is no detection that the distances for detection to the doors themselves have to be incorporated.
Hope the finger gets better soon, otherwise you will not be able to put it down your trousers again without someone thinking it strange.
-
well jokar you defo got me on that one...I didn't know that...so the smoke detector that is about 7 metres away from proposed new doors will suffice...I may now have a red face :(
oh the finger is now splinted up...you would have thought the simple act of tucking yer shirt into yer trousers would be straight forward enough and shouldn't really result in a trip to A&E and then the X-ray department...sorry I digress
-
Now there's a cue for a list of suggestions on what the summink was the lad was muttering.
How's about "That Mushy git has caught me out. I won't make much on this job"
As to how you bent your fingers with your hand pushed down your trousers does not bear thinking about. Cat, any suggestions?
I don't think I want to elaborate on that one. To be safe, no comment. On a serious note I hope your finger gets better soon.
-
Jokar, if the system is already in place - it don't necessarily mean it's it's been done right. Still worth pointing out to RP.
-
Goodness me Mr P, are you saying that people do not put things in correctly? I think the FSC would challenege that they have great examples of where they had completed FRA's to an exacting standard. Though unfortunatley not on their own premises.
Yes, good point.
-
Didn`t CFOA issue some guidance a few years back saying that an L3 system should be used due to Buoyancy of the smoke in corridors.
By the way i`m not agreeing with CFOA, just informing - so please don`t laugh. ???
-
I've been on the piste for a while, so joining this late.
Firstly I would pick up on one minor point.
Someone previously said;
....I'm sure you are aware that 7.5M is a number associated with the distance of the detector from any point in a room for life protection......
I believe that this distance is also applicable to property protection.
Secondly, someone previously mentioned old CFOA recommendations. Surely, these don't overide current British Standards? If they have any authority then I also demand that the WROT (Wiz's Rule Of Thumb) recommendations are also taken into consideration in the future!
In respect of the original question, BS7273 (spit!) almost certainly has some bearing on the issue. This BS can vary the automatic detector positions and spacings (including those in adjacent rooms) dependent on system category designation.
Does anyone know the 5839 system category designation and the 7273 (spit!) actuation category designation of the system in question, so that the specific recommendations can be ascertained?
-
Dear Wiz
i have been on the Piste since i was 17 so thats no excuse for joining in late