FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: gor810 on January 09, 2016, 12:04:08 AM

Title: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: gor810 on January 09, 2016, 12:04:08 AM

Hi all and Happy New year

I have a question which I need some guidance on please.

Is there any requirement for an automatic suppression system installed in accordance with the recommendations contained in BS 9251 to be linked in to the fire warning and detection system main fire alarm panel installed within a residential care premises.

Some information on the premises. The premises are equipped throughout with a category L1 FA system. The sprinkler system has been installed within a newly added wing to the building so as to comply with Building Regulations. The sprinkler system has not been installed by way of a compensatory feature. Standards of fire resistance of doors, walls and ceilings and the rest are those expected of a residential care premises.

I would welcome any comments.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: Jim Scott on January 09, 2016, 10:09:45 AM

The 2014 edition of 9251 does recommended it.

However, it does also say that if the premises is provided with a comprehensive fire detection and alarm system, it may not be necessary.

If the premises is fitted with an L1 system, I would suggest that you will have an alarm activation prior to any sprinkler head activation anyway.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: gor810 on January 09, 2016, 12:07:14 PM

Thanks for the information Jim. I don't have the 2014 amended document yet and was not aware that it was recommended.

I agree that smoke detectors would operate before the sprinkler heads in the part of the premises to which I refer and raise the alarm throughout the premises.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: kurnal on January 09, 2016, 12:14:24 PM

And gives the benefit of a confirmation at the fire alarm panel to the staff that something signi ficant is happening (and escalating ) with alerts from the sprinklers supplementing the detection system. Usually the sprinkler panel is remote from the fire alarm panel and investigation of this alarm in isolation may place extra demands on staff and delay the the investigation of the fire alarm. 

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: gor810 on January 09, 2016, 02:18:41 PM

Yes. Thanks for that input Kurnal.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: colin todd on January 10, 2016, 03:22:01 PM

It probably only costs two and sixpence to do, and is a useful bonus.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: Tom Sutton on January 11, 2016, 09:19:19 AM

gor810 Have you received a messages from me.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: Mike Buckley on January 11, 2016, 09:20:45 AM

The other side of the issue is that if the sprinkler system is linked to the alarm panel then the staff will get a warning that the sprinkler system has gone off which may occur without there being a fire. This will probaly not be due to a fault in the sprinkler system but I deal with a hotel chain all of whose hotels are srpinkered and every hotel has a tale of the sprinkler heads being set off by people using them as coat hangers, people accidentally knocking them, convenient poitne to hang Xmas decorations etc.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: gor810 on January 12, 2016, 03:00:35 PM

Thankyou very much to everyone for their inputs on this matter. This has been most helpful to me.

Title: Re: BS 9251:2005(Rev)
Post by: gor810 on January 14, 2016, 06:38:26 PM

Thankyou very much Tom Sutton for the information. Appreciated.