FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Wiz on December 05, 2011, 11:42:36 AM
-
Someone who has recently attended a Fire Risk Assessors training course has been taught that every escape route that may be available in a building must be protected by automatic fire detection (even in L4). I disagree, what do you think?
The scenario is that room A door opens onto a corridor which leads directly to a fire exit door to the open air within 10 metres travel distance. Room B also opens onto the same corridor but room B also has another door that leads directly to the open air.
I say that only the corridor needs automatic fire detection but, he says that room B requires automatic fire detection also, because it becomes part of an alternative escape route for room A. (The door leading directly to the open air in room B does have an adjacent fire alarm call point and it has been fitted with an illuminated exit sign. Room B also does not have any other doors leading into it other than the above mentioned door from the corridor and door to open area.)
The BS definition for a Category L4 system is Systems installed within those parts of the escape routes comprising circulation areas and circulation spaces, such as corridors and stairways
My point is that Room B is not a circulation area or space and it is not a corridor or stairway.
I maintain that the escape route from room A is through the corridor only and that the automatic detection fitted to it should provide early enough detection to allow its use in a fire emergency.
Comments?
-
Hi Wiz
To be honest from your description it sounds as if AFD isn't required at all. But nevertheless I would agree with you and detection in room B is totally unecessary in my opinion. Is room B a circulation space? I would have to say no from your description
That said is there any further info on the use of these rooms Wiz?
-
For arguments sake we could say they are both rooms are classrooms in a school.
I would have thought that their use didn't matter in respect of whether Room B should have an automatic detector in a BS5839-1 L4 system.
-
No you're right Wiz, I just wondered if there was any special risk identified in Room B that the assessor felt warranted detection thats all. :)
-
Wiz. Is it the case the trainer is saying that the MOE from Room A is into the corridor and then a choice between the corridor main entrance or into Room B to use its final exit?
-
But does there have to be a choice of escape routes N.T.?, and does it become mandatory to protect all other available choices in L4 (no matter how diverse the available routes are)?
As I see it, the occupants of room A have a means of escape protected by the AFD in the corridor, surely, in the simplest situations they don't NEED another option. The occupants of room B can use the corridor OR the door to open air from room B. But the occupants of room A have their main option, and don't need to detour through room B.
In this day and age where many school classrooms have a door leading to the open air, and with the BS recommendation for a mcp adjacent to that door, many people are believing that the classrooms are part of the escape routes so have to be protected by AFD even in L4. Surely this is not what L4 is trying to meet. If it is then the cost of an L4 system in a typical fairly modern school will cost almost as much as an L3 system, so what is the point of L4?
I don't see that the classrooms are part of the escape routes from other areas which already have an escape route protected by AFD i.e. via the corridor, in this case.
The BS uses the words circulation areas and spaces such as corridors and stairways for L4, to me this does not mean classrooms, in the general sense (unless that classroom area formed the only escape route from other areas - in which case it would be a circulation area).
If it was necessary to cover every available option of escape route, then surely the recommendation would be written in a far simpler way, somrthing such as, AFD to cover all and every escape route that a person might use
Why put in more detection when it is not strictly required to meet the stated recommendations for L4? It seems to me that some people interpret everything so that it justs costs more. I believe the L4 category is purposely trying to provide the absolute minimum of coverage of AFD which it considers safe.
-
Can't actually see reason for having alternative for Room A. It is even stranger that Room B is regarded as an alternative from Room A when you still have to go into the corridor to get in to Room B. If the situation required A to have an alternative it would not be by using Room B via the corridor. If corridor is protected then why would anyone want to go into Room B?
Has the Trainer been on a 2 1/2 day fire risk assessment course by chance?
-
Totally agree with you both. Can't see any benefit in having detection in room B, or to be fair the corridor for that matter (!).
-
AFD isn't a requirement and it all depends on the building/routes available whether it is required at all. Manual systems are fine for many buildings but it seems to be the modern way that AFD is provided as well and in my opinion its almost got to 'urban myth' proportions that all should have detection.
-
AFD isn't a requirement and it all depends on the building/routes available whether it is required at all. Manual systems are fine for many buildings but it seems to be the modern way that AFD is provided as well and in my opinion its almost got to 'urban myth' proportions that all should have detection.
Yep. Many seem to miss the "where necessary" bit in the legislation.
Unfortunately many installers only know of one category of detection. Guess which?
-
Guys, thanks for all your answers.
I appreciate that the scenario I have described might not even require AFD at all, but for the sake of my argument, we have to assume that an L4 system has been requested and therefore we need to provide AFD where necessary to comply with L4.
So the question I want an answer to is quite simply; In the L4 scenario I originally described is there any recommendation in BS5839-1 requiring AFD in Room B? I don't think so.
All the replies so far, seem to agree with me. This is good news for me in trying to get my message across to those who I am trying to convince about my interpretation of what is required to comply with L4.
I welcome further input, and even from those who might disagree. Remember, we are not discussing whether BS is right or wrong in what it wants from an L4, but only if the published current BS recommendations require AFD in room B in my original scenario?
-
Wiz, one way to look at is is that just because there is a door to fresh air from room B, this does not automatically make it an alternative from room A. Room A's escape is covered adequately by the detector in the corridor. In the event of a fire in room B it ceases to be a valid escape route from room A, and in the event of a fire in room A the detector in room B is of no benefit. In the event of a fire in the corridor, however unlikely, the detector in room B again plays no part.
It's a useless detector apart from giving something akin to L3 coverage for anyone in room A.
-
If L4 was actually needed (say room A & b are in different occupancy) then it would only be the corridor, that's the interpretation I've seen & used in loads of places.
The assessor describes what appears to be an L5 system - it's not L4 nor really L3, so is specific to a risk.
Some people don't believe that Category M is still fine for many places until I show them BS5839 & ADB.
However it seems if you are building anything new these days, it has to be L1 (Not P1/M, which would be totally different despite from an equipment point of view being virtually the same)
-
Civvy, you have also confirmed my feelings exactly. I am trying to explain this all to someone who is looking at something in the wrong way and might only believe me if he realises it is not only me who thinks so! This guy believes that because room B COULD be used as an escape route from someone in room A, then room B MUST have AFD, even though room A still has an escape route down the main corridor and which is sufficiently protected by AFD,
AnthonyB, you are taking the question further than I want to in this thread. Let us just assume that the system is designated (rightly or wrongly) L4 and that room A, the corridor, and room B are all we are concentrating on in respect of this question (i.e. there is detection etc. in other areas) Does room B need detection in an L4?
-
This guy believes that because room B COULD be used as an escape route from someone in room A, then room B MUST have AFD, even though room A still has an escape route down the main corridor and which is sufficiently protected by AFD,
Wiz. Crazy Crazy. If it ain't marked as a way out it ain't needed. If it is marked as a way out it shouldn't be.
Sometimes banging your head off a brick wall just isn't enough. In your case shake your head, push a pencil up each nostril and walk away.
-
OK, then. No as it is a room, not a circulation space.
-
Thanks for all your responses, guys. It seems that the person I was trying to convince has seen the light. He is now wondering why he spent so much money being trained something that appears to be wrong!
-
Thanks for all your responses, guys. It seems that the person I was trying to convince has seen the light. He is now wondering why he spent so much money being trained something that appears to be wrong!
I would be interested to know the type of organisation and the experience of the trainer.
Was the course your convincee was on a FRA one?
I would suggest that if this is the level of instruction being offered there is a competency issue. And this is page one level of a Fire Safety for Idiots guide.
-
Thanks for all your responses, guys. It seems that the person I was trying to convince has seen the light. He is now wondering why he spent so much money being trained something that appears to be wrong!
I would be interested to know the type of organisation and the experience of the trainer.
Was the course your convincee was on a FRA one?
I would suggest that if this is the level of instruction being offered there is a competency issue. And this is page one level of a Fire Safety for Idiots guide.
I'll try and find out more info regarding the course he attended. Obviously, he might just have misunderstood what he had been taught!
-
Did he learn about alarms on a FRA course or a separate specific one? I ask because if it was a fire alarm design course I'd like to know which umbrella organisation it was with as in the New Year I'm shelling out a load (or work are) of money to get separate standalone FA & EL design training beyond that in my existing training in fire safety and don't want to go somewhere that teaches it incorrectly.
-
Why do people run on tramlines. (Have they not seen the cost that laying tramlines has created for the nice people of Edinburgh.)
The question that everyone is rabbitting on about aimlessly is a non question.
To keep people safe from fire, you decide where fire detectors are needed (if indeed anywhere). Then you decide what to call the system. What you categorically do NOT do is say I think I need an L4 system so where do I put the detectors. It is **** about face fire safety.
If the room in question needs a detector it needs a detector. If it doesnt, then what is all the fuss about. Call the system what you want, so long as it relfects the need for fire detectors to keep people safe from fire. I thought that was all that legislative fire safety was about.
-
Have you had a bad day or something?
-
If the room in question needs a detector it needs a detector. If it doesnt, then what is all the fuss about. Call the system what you want, so long as it reflects the need for fire detectors to keep people safe from fire. I thought that was all that legislative fire safety was about.
Which is why L5 exists!
It's true that it is too easy to end up trying to fit the buliding into a detection category instead of fitting the detection to suit the building.
The site I visited today that needs a new system can't be fitted to one category (unless you go OTT to L1) and instead is going to be L5 with specific locations to suit the varying risks.
-
Why do people run on tramlines. (Have they not seen the cost that laying tramlines has created for the nice people of Edinburgh.)
The question that everyone is rabbitting on about aimlessly is a non question.
To keep people safe from fire, you decide where fire detectors are needed (if indeed anywhere). Then you decide what to call the system. What you categorically do NOT do is say I think I need an L4 system so where do I put the detectors. It is **** about face fire safety.
If the room in question needs a detector it needs a detector. If it doesnt, then what is all the fuss about. Call the system what you want, so long as it relfects the need for fire detectors to keep people safe from fire. I thought that was all that legislative fire safety was about.
Oh Mr C.T.! Whilst perfectly understanding your comments, it is the BS that has created the problem that you decry!
System designers are constantly faced with the instruction to just design a system to L this or P that as per BS5839-1 2002 + A2 2008. The designer then has to interpret the recommendations to provide the recommended coverage whilst trying to ensure he is not accused of 'over-designing' the system at wasted cost to the customer. Worse still are the arguments from those (and everybody is an expert these days - they have been on a 1 day training course!) who say the recommendations have been interpreted wrongly and that 'critically important equipment' has been missed out, putting everybody's lives in mortal danger.
But what I am mostly trying to say is that the category selection invariably comes before the design and that, in fact, is how the BS says it should be!
-
Exactly. At design stage the designer will usually say that such-and-such scheme will have a category X system. It is then for the installer, who will have very little training if any on fire safety, to stick the detectors in the right place as dictated by any definitions within the standard.
-
Partly with you Civvy, but I feel it is definitely the designers job to confirm in which areas equipment, and what type of equipment is required - not the installers.
Obviously the installer needs to understand the BS recommendations because they have to correctly site the selected equipment within those areas, and also be able to advise the designer of any problems/deficiencies that the designer may not have been aware of at the time of producing the design.
What BS makes clear is that it is the 'interested parties' that determine what catagory of system is required. At that stage it is handed over to the system designer to meet that determination and has even probably not have been party to the category selection.
I took Mr C.T.'s comments to suggest that the designer decided what was required, and then decided what category the system would meet from that! Surely, that is not right and also not how BS5839-1 describes the process!
-
I invented both the L4 and L5 systems. Most days I wish I hadnt.
Tony, an L4 system with an additional detector is not L5. It is L4 with an additional detector.
Wizard, you are misinterpreting what we wrote in the BS. It is really quite simple- it is the fire safety specialist who is meant to determine where detectors go, based on their knowledge of fire safety which fire alarm designers are not expected to have. Having decided where they are to go, back in 1988 the categories (then known as types) were invented as a shorthand way of communicating this to the designer of the fire alarm system.
I have just drafted a Factfile for FIA, which will explain this in words of one syllable, in the possibly forlorn hope that after 23 years of system categories, people might get the idea.
-
Civvy, thank you for your concern about my day. Just assume most days are bad days in fire safety these days, especially if one has to deal with the output of enforcing authorities-todays rubbish I have had to deal with is two9 different inspecting officers telling an RP that the FORMAT of the example FRA in PAS 79 is no longer acceptable.
-
I invented both the L4 and L5 systems. Most days I wish I hadnt.
Tony, an L4 system with an additional detector is not L5. It is L4 with an additional detector.
Wizard, you are misinterpreting what we wrote in the BS. It is really quite simple- it is the fire safety specialist who is meant to determine where detectors go, based on their knowledge of fire safety which fire alarm designers are not expected to have. Having decided where they are to go, back in 1988 the categories (then known as types) were invented as a shorthand way of communicating this to the designer of the fire alarm system.
I have just drafted a Factfile for FIA, which will explain this in words of one syllable, in the possibly forlorn hope that after 23 years of system categories, people might get the idea.
Excellent! Anything that helps anyone to reduce misinterpretation of a BS has got to be useful.
Shame there are so many of us idiots about, and shame BS couldn't be clearer to start with!
I'm undecided about this new guy, the fire safety specialist, joining the party. Will he need to certificate his input?
-
Wiz he isnt new. If you have been taking on the role, I hope your professional indemnity insurance is ok with a high limit, as efficacy insurance may not cut it for you.
-
You really don't like it when someone is as sarcastic as you, do you Toddy!
For someone who could be a real help on this forum, you invariably come over as unhelpful, arrogant and sarcastic. Shame!
-
Agreed
-
Hear Hear! >:(
-
I wasnt aware you had it in you to be as arcastic as me Wiz. I must have missed the sarcasm. Which post was it and I will read it again.
-
I strive only to treat others as they treat me.
I have obviously failed to meet your high standards.
I can try a bit harder, if you wish!
-
Speaking as an employee of an organisation that Lord Todd derides and scorns on this board more than any other, I would like to register a vote of thanks for his witty and well-written posts. (Derbyshire Carol is class). They usually make me smile. As I used to attempt to write policy documents I know how frustrating it is when a guidance document is received as the latest religious text to be analysed.
Having said that I take the point about specifications of fire alarms coming before design and I fear it may be something else that FRSs will be blamed for. Our enforcement notices usually say something like: your fire warning arrangements are sh**, an L99 system should sort it aht.
Happy Christmas
-
Big A, thank you for your words of support, which mean almost as much to me as the pussy cat salt and pepper set I got from my wee girl for Christmas.
In return, I must be gracious enough to admit, the cart before the horse approach to fire alarm design is not the fault of the FRS. It has always been a major philosophical problem, and lies with M&E consutlants and other specifiers. A reference to Category on an EN is just a steer, though I agree, for some Categories, it wont mean much without additional info.