FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: messy on November 11, 2005, 08:45:37 PM
-
Can anyone tell me why heat detectors are permitted (in certain circumstances) in Hotel rooms?
I have heard various explanations as to why this is allowed but would be interested in the response from members of this forum.
-
There is a variation of a cat L1 that applies to the install of co and heat detection in bedrooms that relates to an L3 which allows any afd type in the rooms of hotels.
The hd are usually designated smoking rooms
-
The Lilac Guide( Hotel Guide) which FRS used to use when certificating hotels recommended the use of heat detection in bedrooms to try and keep false alarms down.
-
Messy, this goes right back to two things. The early days of the FP Act and research carried out on behalf of the Home Office in the mid 1980s. When the FP Act was first introduced the chance that you would die from fire if you spent one night in a hotel was approx 10 times that if you spent one night at home. The Act, the designation order and the early guidance was not intended to protect the individual in the room of origin, but only to protect the means of escape for others. ( Thus the person could kill himself if he wanted, same as at home, but not kill anyone else.) Early guidance from the Home Office was that you did not need ANY AFD for this purpose, but all you needed was a break glass manual system. This alone was very effective in reducing fire deaths dramatically-see 1970s fire stats and you will note a step change in fatalities. In practice, as time progressed, people were using AFD in hotels, BUT (and this is really important, Messey) the goal had not changed-the objective was still as set out above. To meet '' the objective'', AFD was put in the corridors only. ( There are still hotels with only the manual systems or only the AFD in corrdiors even today). It was assumed that the AFD in the corridors would operate early enough to allow those beyond the room of origin to escape. Then, around the mid 1980s, the Home Offcie began to ask the question as to whether everyone was sure that the above practice did indeed meet the objective. Specifically, they wanted to know whether the detectors in the corridors would operate early enough to allow escape of those beyond the room of origin before the corridor was smoke logged.
So FRS were contracted to carry out very elegeant research work, using a full scale mock up of a corridor with rooms of at Cardington. They set fires in a room and observed conditions in the corridor, with detectors 15m apart. In general, they found the set up was often ok and people were given early enough warning. However, under certain circumstances, which included no intumescent strips on the doors but just old BS 459-3 doors (which are not used now anyway!!!) they coculd smoke log the corridor before an alarm was given. Further research showed that this depended on the size of the gap around the door. Sods law was that a 3mm gap was worst case, and further work showed that the problem was caused not so much by the hot buyoant gases from the fire but from the pyrolisis of the timber at the head of the door, which resulted in relatively cool, heavy tarry smoke entering the corridor and not having enough bouancy to operate detectors 15m apart.
In truth, this was all very interesting but there was no anecdotal evidence whatsoever of this causing fatalities in hotels, and in any case bedroom doors all have intumescent strips. So, many took the view that it was all very interesting, but so what (including an ex senior fire safety man from your brigade).
There were, howvever, 3 options in dealing with the theoretical problem. One was to rely on the intumescent strips. (Counter arguement was that they might not be fitted.) Two was to ensure that a dtector was always fitted in the corridor close to the bedroom door, as the problem only arose in a lenghty corridor with the detectors 15m apart. (Counter arguement, makes for an awful lot of dtectors in corridors, so might as well go for third option.) Third option was to put detectors in rooms. BIG POINT HERE: These detectors were NEVER intended to protect the person in the room of origin but to protect everyone else to a much better standard.
Ultimately, it was thr 3rd option that was selected. WHY? Because the research showed that even a heat detector in the room would buy about 9 minutes (in the particular reasearch set up) over and above smokes in the corridor alone.
It was purely this work that led to the invention of the Cat L3 system. It does not protect the individual in the room but ensures loadsa warning before the common escape routes are threatened. Thus BS 5839-1 was revised to say (as it still does today), these detectors can be of any type, heat, smoke or CO. Moreover, since the only objective is to warn others before a whacking great fire occurs in the room to the extent that a 30 min FR door is burning away, the detectors can even just be heat detectors on the wall near the door.
Home Office policy was to agree that any detector will do the job , but heat should be chosen because of the need for false alarms (except for disabled rooms and dormitories).This was perfectly logical advice that really still stands today.
Problem was that a lot of fire authorities (including yours) got the entirely wrong end of the stick and though that this new call for detectors in bedrooms was because the objective had changed and we were now protecting the individual in the room of origin. This was not correct and it was some years before the penny dropped and, in the case of your brigade, a chap (who is now a very well respected consultant but was in your fire safety policy group at the time) issued a gudiance note telling the I/Os to stop demanding smoke detectors in bedrooms.
To this day, it remains a mess, Messy, in the sense that a lot of this was lost on new I/Os throughout the country. Many still think the detectors are to protect the occupant. Some accept heat without question. Some accept heat and recommend smoke. Some demand smoke because they dont understand the background.
What about the poor guy in the room of origin? The record shows he doesnt die anyway. In a study carried out in fires over a 5 year period prior to introducing detectors in bedrooms, not a single sould died from fire in any star rated hotel in the UK. Thos who died in non-star rated accommodation were mostly in hostel-like properties, and those who died in the room of origin were committing suicide or were out of it on drugs or alcohol in the main.
So those who do require s/d in bedrooms are trying to save the lives of those who never die anyway---to the detriment of the safety of others, which is compromised by the tendency to ignore alarms because of the rate of false alarms, to introduce staff alarms to delay signals from s/d (so might as well have hd) etc etc.
Ignore hype from people about sophisticated systems ignoring phenomena that cause false alarms, as, in the case of the average system, it is bunkum. In a recently opened hotel, there were 50 false alarms in the first week as a result of steam from en suite showers and kettles.
-
Colin:
I was hoping for a detailed response, but I'll make do with yours!!
The details in your reply do supply the flesh on the bones of what I have been told or read, so I am grateful to you (& the others who have replied).
Although I understand the rationale and evidence which allows for HD in bedrooms, it still doesn't seem right. I would have thought that SD and TDS, when adequately managed, extends life cover to all whilst providing a system to reduce UwFS
Maybe it's because I am approaching the issue from a ex operation firefighter's point of view where the objective at any fire is to reduce the risk to ALL by evacuating or rescuing.
Whereas the British Standard seems to be more scientific/mathematical, and uses probabilities and data which ultimately 'allows' the odd fatality.
It strikes me another example of why it's no accident that the initials B.S. stand for British Standards and Bullsh1t
-
. In a recently opened hotel, there were 50 false alarms in the first week as a result of steam from en suite showers and kettles.
not too mention the purple rinsers with talc and hairspray.
and folks going o.t.t with deoderants.
-
Ahhh,that'll be the Lynx effect then?
-
Spray more - Get more (False alarms that is!!)
-
How very true - had spurious false alarmd from a hotel on repeated occassions,all within a 4 hour window during the morning but in different rooms.The fact that it was occuring at the same times indicated an enviromental cause - housekeeper freshening up smelly rooms with air freshener!
-
or the classic
leave the bathroom door open while having a bath,so you can talk to your wife or watch tv in the mirror.
-
or watch your wife having a bath in the mirror
-
Messey: two points. One is that no one dies in room of origin in hotels in practice. Two, do you have a smoke detector in your bedroom at home?
-
Colin: I see your point.
However, you are wrong about watching the wife bathe via the mirror. I tried it this morning and noticed two things. The mirror mists up and she got a little grumpy with me leaving the bathroom door open
-
Messey: two points. One is that no one dies in room of origin in hotels in practice. Two, do you have a smoke detector in your bedroom at home?
Fair point - I only have a smoke detectors in my bedroom to act as a sounder to wake me up, if I was usinga commercial fire system rather than a set of linked domestic heads I's probably only have a sounder
-
To follow on from Colin's potted history of detection in hotel bedrooms (required reading for all potential FSO's and fire risk assessors) the next point to be raised is inevitably the different emphasis on the provision of protective and preventive measures under the RRFSO.
The provision of detection under the RRFSO is all about "to the extent that is appropriate" and "to safeguard the safety of relevant persons"
If a 'relevant person' is anyone in the building then that must include sleeping guests. Is it therefore reasonable to argue that as fires do not start in hotel bedrooms then none of them require detection ?
Smoke detectors (only) should therefore be provided in just the means of escape ... but there should be a sounder in every bedroom.....
The provision of a heat detector in a bedroom would not fulfill the requirements of the RRFSO at all.
Food for thought ..
-
Here's where I stick my head above the wall to get it shot at! As I am only familiar with 5839 can I sumise that if the decision is made on the basis that the chance of a false alarm exceeds that of someone being involved in a room fire,and that you are aiming to protect the escape corridor then a heat detector inside the room door would fulfil this in the same way as a smoke detector does in a L3 system.That is,the doorway leading on to the corridor is protected thus giving a protected barrier (or am I just talking out my ar..emmm,hat!)
-
ar..emmm,hat!)
REM hat!!!
think you are losing your religion Al
-
.... Is it therefore reasonable to argue that as fires do not start in hotel bedrooms then none of them require detection ? ..
Fred,
I dont think anyone has said that fires dont start in hotel bedrooms, just that they havent killed many occupiers. We need to consider the effect of a fire in an unoccupied bedroom or other room adjoining an escape route.
False alarms can be kept to a minimum with heat detection or a smoke detector and a silent staff alarm.
Steve
-
BUzzy Bee, You have got it in one. Quite right. Frederick, Good to see you on the Board again! Interesting point, but what about the point in the RRO that measures to protect the many override measures to protect the individual. I could argue that SD in rooms puts the rest at risk because of false alarms..............
-
Hotels are very keen to reduce the amount of false alarms. Apart from anything else, their customers dont like it.
Sleeping occupants could be rapidly alerted by a mains/battery domestic type smoke detector/alarm. The corridor would probably still need to be protected by a heat detector (in the room) or silent staff alarm.
I have heard that some hotels are going for the American NFPA hotel standard in order to attract American customers. I am not familiar with this standard. Does it require SD or HD in the bedrooms? I think that it does ask for sprinklers.
-
There are a number of US owned Hotels in central London that use this American standard including sprinklers.
This is a very brave policy when you consider the damage that the midnight drunken corridor antics of certain stag/rugby/type groups, (including firefighter's beanos) may cause.
The corridor sprinklers are very low and extremely 'accessible'. In fact in one Hotel, they are situated by the wall, away from the centre line of the corridor, to allow a reasonable headroom within the corridor.
-
The last hotel i was at in LA had m.o smoke alarms in each room,with an equivent grade A system for escape routes.
Why follow that concept?
I think it is substandard.
What if you get some plonker remove the smoke alarm or damage it. No fault condition for the next occupant,or they may get lucky and the cleaning staff notice it hanging from the ceiling.
-
Messey, Even your outfit must know about concealed heads.
-
Messey, Even your outfit must know about concealed heads.
These low sprinklers were'nt our idea. They were apparently installed as a result of the Fire Safety Policy of this US Hotel group.
Of course I've heard of concealed heads but rarely see them (mind you, that's the point isn't it!?)
-
We all seem to be focussed on 'protective' measures - detectors of one sort or another and sprinklers - perhaps we should be opening our minds a little and give consideration to 'preventive' measures outside the traditional list of options - like RCD's which if I'm not mistaken should eliminate the potential for ignition by electrical faults.
Electrical engineers observations would be most welcome ....
-
I'm all for prevention but the one factor that you can't allow for is the "person" in the room. Certainly in a lot of the newer hotels the power to the lights and sockets is linked to the keycard being inserted inside the door,thus (in theory) ruling out heating appliances being left on. What it doesn't cover is the smoker or the one who likes perfumed candles burning in their room.
-
The reason some US hotels use sprinklers is because Civil Servants from the states are not allowed to stay in hotels that don't have them.
Bizarely not all US Hotels have them. Classic stuff. the result is that the more expensive hotels have them but the cheap ones don't.
-
You are correct, Brian, but I never understood the logic. Everyone knows that civil servants are expendable. Frederick, I rather like RCD's. They are not the answer to all fires of electrical origin, but they help. They do tend to nuisance trip though, which is why a lot of electrical engineers are still against them. This is mainly because they are set at 30mA, which is appropriate for shock protection. I do not believe you need them set that low if it were just for fire protection. One of my few successes in life was, back in the 1970s. persuading the IEE to require RCDs on ceiling heating systems. I arranged some test work, which showed that an RCD would prevent a fire if the happy wee DIY man put a nail through the ceiling and into the cable, and it would save him from electrocution. (The success was short-lived because ceiling heating had its day very quickly anyway when people realized they were paying to heat the Milky Way and got huge bills as a result!)