FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Guides and Legislation Links => Topic started by: jokar on August 23, 2011, 06:31:18 PM
-
Had a quick read of this new draft document today. I think I am going mad! What is an LD1 Fire Alarm system to BS 5839 Part 6, shouldn't there be a Grade in there somewhere.
The terms and definitions do not support the terms and definitions used in the prose, what is an area of special fire hazard, I know I will look in the Glossary of ADB for that answer.
and on and on.
-
You can have LD1 as a specification of coverage without any reference to Grade, which relates to the format of the engineering.
-
Thanks for that but I don't see that in the context of the document. I have read some more though, PHE for Sheltered Accommodation, references to BS 9999 but nothing about the Tables, but has carried across bits from the sections on Atria and Acccess and Facilities for firefighters but not all of it. The document seems to be really prescriptive and likes sprinklers a lot.
-
I was going to take it to California with me to read on holiday. Do you think it will spoil my holiday as in, from the producers of the garbage BS 9999, FSH/14 proudly presents the nightmare on BS 9991 street, now showing at a fleapit near you.
-
Well, lets hope that the whole 'draft' stage gets the errors and problems removed. It is not a million miles away from standard ADB solutions, and as Wiz says, plenty of allowances for sprinkler systems.
It is not the behemoth that BS9999 was/is, and I don't think it is being rushed through so hastily.
I don't think that there is an easy way to print the entire document out, its a web-based page-by-page thing, so you might have to go without it on your holiday. Don't be too sad.
-
Do we know who has written the draft or which BSI steering group is reviewing it?
Can any of us get on the steering group to have some influence?
How does it sit with Colins new guidance?
Sorry to say I cannot adapt to the new on screen only review system, it does not work for me. I used to download and read drafts on paper over a few days in my own spare time as bedtime reading etc and if I have to to do it online it will not happen.
People like the administrators at the BSI need to realise that for many of us at the sharp end reading new guidance and standards has to happen outside working hours and is motivated through personal interest and a passion for the subject. Even though more recently we had to pay to download the draft which was also a nonsense considering the value we were adding to the document.
I was on the PAS79 steering group and it was sad to note that the public consultation only drew responses from about 10 people. Was this because people could not download and print the draft?
-
I have to agree Kurnal. I am working my way through it, and it would be considerably better if I could print it out, highlight any issues, then go back and comment once I have finished. The online page-by-page thing tends to mean that I will comment on something, and then a few pages later the issue is actually clarified.
It doesn't seem very clear on the residential/domestic sprinkler issue. i.e. Which do you need to get the trade-offs. For most trade-offs or scenarios I would suggest that the residential standard should apply, but for such as inner-room bedrooms then the domestic system could be suitable. The standard doesn't make any apparent differentiation.
-
It's very contradictory - first it says common areas do not normally need fire alarms systems, but then says that where a smoke control system is installed that requires AFD, then a BS5839-1 fire alarm system is required, which will be jumped on by all and sundry as a reason to fill every flat block with sounders and call points.
At least it will keep the fire alarm industry ticking over in installs, servicing and of course call outs an drepair of vandalised components!
-
I seem to have a hard copy, so dont have all these excuses. I wish I did.
Big Al, I just told you if you would listen, it is ulitmately the responsibility of FSH/14 and the relevant technical sub-committee. There will be representation from all the usual suspects. The reason few people commented on PAS 79 is it is amazingly good. Although my recollection may be wrong, I think even Eli wrote in to say something to that effect.
-
Thanks Colin sometimes you are a little bit too cryptic for me remember I only had an English education.
Well heres the answer then http://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/Home/Committee/50002213#tabs-representation
Its very thin in terms of representation of the fire safety industry. No FIA, IFSM, IFPO, Warrington (must include everybody) or even CFOA. I might ask the BSI for a hard copy. Wont hold my breath though.
-
Why would a certification body be involved in a standard for fire precautions in the design of dwellings???? And if Warrington, which seems for some odd reason to be at the forefront of your mind, why not TRADA, BRE Certification and BSI laboratories. I can only assume that, with your heritage, you have been drinking the vodka that comes from the town. Big Al, sometimes I think that, when you drive home from London to Derbyshire you dont just stray off the M1 onto B roads but you divert over fields and woods. However, if you really need a hard copy, I can probably arrange this for you, after which I will teach you how to use the remote control on your TV, cook in a microwave (in case you give Mrs K a night off) and do all the things that we modern youngesters do. However, I will probably stop short of teaching you to read a document on screen, as this would be a challenge too far.
-
I just put that comment in devilment thinking it might wind you up (and it did). Yes I probably spend too much time in the car with too little to think about.
Now you miss the point over the IT review system. Its not just a luddite view.
Civvy put one of the big problems in context in reply 6 above. Just as Civvys point is very relevant in reading the document, the system may lead to poor and ill considered responses being submitted before a later clause in the document under review provides further explantion or context.
This may lead to unneccesary comment being made or later comments by the same persons retracting their earlier comments. I find it particularly irritating on screen where the document under review refers to other clauses and sub clauses, in which statements of the " 6.1 if any of the items considered in clause 2.5 are found then they shold be considered and recorded on the proforma in appendix A" because you cannot easily cross reference these.
I have noticed the horse chestnuts are turning autumnal three weeks early this year.
-
Well I am off to Los Angeles in the morning and will take my hard copy of BS 9991 with me. You were unsuccessful in winding me up, Big Al as I am demob happy and I take comfort in the fact that Lech Walenza went to school in Glasgow.
-
That is why he was such a strong man then!
I have worked my way through my hard copy only to become confused, not too hard for me. Lots of comments to make but probably the main one is that it is confusing. You read one clause in one section and then it states something else in another. Wouldn't it be nice, is that a line from a song from the 60's. to have clarity throughout one section and all the information relevant to a particular build type there in front of you rather than having to dig around numbers of pages. My particular favourite at the moment is that with sprinklers in dwelling you can double the travel distances in blocks of flats but not in sheltered housing or care homes. The aged and the disbaled obviously only live in sheltered housing and care homes is a logical conclusion then.
-
I agree Jokar but then that also raises another thorny question that is not addressed by the document.
11.1.2 Permitted variations of guidance
With the exception of sheltered and extra care housing, where a block of flats is fitted with a
sprinkler system in every flat, the maximum travel distance for escape in one direction only
may be increased from 7.5 m to 15 m and for escape in more than one direction it may be
increased from 30 m to 60 m.
This is in a building in which each flat - and NOT the communal areas- has its own self contained BS9251 domestic sprinkler installation. How on earth can the maintenance of all these installations in private dwellings be enforced, controlled and co-ordinated? How many will still be working in 10 or 50 years time? We have enough problems with flat entrance doors and even letter plates for goodness sake.
-
This is in a building in which each flat - and NOT the communal areas- has its own self contained BS9251 domestic sprinkler installation. How on earth can the maintenance of all these installations in private dwellings be enforced, controlled and co-ordinated? How many will still be working in 10 or 50 years time? We have enough problems with flat entrance doors and even letter plates for goodness sake.
I mentioned this to the head of fire safety in one brigade and he looked at me like I'd landed from Mars, saw no issues at all.
The issue of lowering the sprinkler requirement from 30m in ADB to 18m may raise a few eyebrows, and did the study into open plan arrangements find that it was OK for all arrangements to be OK with a sprinkler system and additional detectors?
-
This isn't new and has already happened - I posted about a high rise residential development using exactly this clause a month or two back.
And as you correctly stated Kurnal, the problem of the maintenance of all these installations in the private has already reared it's head after just a few years, with no answer other than someone will eventually end up in one of the courts.
-
The issue of lowering the sprinkler requirement from 30m in ADB to 18m may raise a few eyebrows
Where is this? I can see where it states that flats above 30m should be sprinkler protected, but not 18m.
-
The issue of lowering the sprinkler requirement from 30m in ADB to 18m may raise a few eyebrows
Where is this? I can see where it states that flats above 30m should be sprinkler protected, but not 18m.
I think I'm reading 29.2, Table 3 wrong? Here it gives the FR requirements for the structure - only gives an Fr rating for unsprinklered buildings for <18m. <30m and >30m have a line thru' it. Table 4 gives vent conditions that seems to allow for 120 mins up to 30 mins, but if they can't be achieved Table 3 should be used, and for that table, the system should be EN 12845, whereas Table 3 states 9251. IIRC, the Resi BS does have a height limit, but ADB says to disregard this.
-
I don't know if this is really stating that buildings of such a size cannot be made without following the ventilation recommendations that follow with regards to table 4. i.e. Between 18 and 30m you can build it unsprinklered, but you can't build it unsprinklered AND unvented. Therefore you have to supply the ventilation suggested in table 4.
There are a couple more paragraphs earlier on that state that buildings with flats over 30m should be sprinklered, and there has been comment made that this should not be limited to just 'flats'. The table essentially counters any argument as to whether or not any applicable building over 30m needs sprinklers.
I think that it needs clarification as to what standard of sprinklers is required. It is my opinion that if BS9251 is being used in a tall building, that it should be of the residential standard, as it is not simply the MOE from the flat that is being protected, it is protecting the people who are subject to a stay-put policy. The domestic standard is a fair compromise where open plan layouts are used, as it is the MOE from the bedrooms through the main accommodation that is being protected there.
-
Civvy why are fires bigger in higher buildings?
-
They are not. If I were to defend the choice of sprinklers being required over 30m then I would suggest that beyond 30m you have almost zero chance of having something turn up at your window that you can escape via.
-
So then what is wrong with BS 9251 sprinklers regardless of height.
-
I am not talking about BS9251 sprinklers in general, I am talking about the difference between the 'residential' and the 'domestic' requirements.
"It is my opinion that if BS9251 is being used in a tall building, that it should be of the residential standard" i.e. Not just 10 minutes worth of water.
I look at it like this; if you get the correct pressure/flow to enable a suitable amount of water to come out for a suitable amount of time, then where is the problem?
Also, the standard doesn't seem to have the same faith in watermist above 20m.
-
ok let me rephrase the question. Why is 10 minutes supply okk for a flat at 29m in height but you need 20 minutes for a flat at 31m.
-
30min.
Maybe you need to go read the standard first.
-
30 minutes or 10 minutes, 30m or 6m I feel uncomfortable with relaxing fire precautions in communal areas in lieu of fire precautions in private flats over which no effective control can be exercised.
Its not just a matter of doubling the permitted travel distance its also doubling the number of flats exposed to the dead end condition so doubling the chance that the escape route wil be exposed to a fire in a flat and the potential consequences should just one of them not maintain their system.
-
This one requires my H & S head on.
Its like all RAs really, deal with what you have control over (or have more faith in ;D)
davo
sh*t happens, OK ???
-
The time limit matters not but I would be interested in the answer to the question set at
ok let me rephrase the question. Why is 10 minutes supply okk for a flat at 29m in height but you need 20 minutes for a flat at 31m.
if any one knows why this is. What is so magic about 11m etres, 18 metres, 30 metres and 50 metres. History will do.
-
Length of ladders and high rise for the first 3, and hydraulics and gravity for the last.
-
The time limit matters not but I would be interested in the answer to the question set atok let me rephrase the question. Why is 10 minutes supply okk for a flat at 29m in height but you need 20 minutes for a flat at 31m.
if any one knows why this is. What is so magic about 11m etres, 18 metres, 30 metres and 50 metres. History will do.
12m,18m & 30m when converted to imperial make nice round numbers - 40, 60 & 100 - maybe?
-
You won't be happy until someone mentions the wheeled escape will you?
-
Civvy why are fires bigger in higher buildings?
They are not.
They have the potential to be so................ due to enhanced ventilation effects.
If a window for example were to fail on the 16th floor there will be a pressure differential on the windward side of the building as against the leeward side of the building. This is exacerbated by the wind gradient ensuing wind at that level will be greater velocity than at ground level.
This can cause higher temperatures and accelerated fire development in compartments and breaking out of compartments both upwards and downwards.
Al la Harrow Court, Stevenage. Shirley Towers, Southampton. Lakanal House, Camberwell. Etc etc
Add to that the difficulty in accessing the fire and getting sufficient water pressure/flow to fight a fire at that level; fires can be bigger at higher levels.
-
I am formulating a response to the draft document and would be grateful for the help of any one who would like to contibute. I do have an electronic copy of the draft which I would be prepared to share with anyone who will make time to read it and let me have their considered opinions for submission back to BSI. The deadline for responses to BSI is the 15 October so I would need to receive any responses from firenet members by 1 October.
-
Samuel, Interesting theory, but I dont think there is any statistical evience to suport it in practice, which is why I still want to know from Civvy (who has meticulously avoided the question) as to why he thinks you need the sprinklers in a flat at 31m to run for longer than a flat at 29m.
-
First of all, I answered it quite directly.
They are not. If I were to defend the choice of sprinklers being required over 30m then I would suggest that beyond 30m you have almost zero chance of having something turn up at your window that you can escape via.
Secondly, I believe that the two standards in BS9251 are for different things. One (domestic) is to protect the MOE from the flat/room in question, the other (residential) is to ensure that a building is protected in order to secure the MOE for other people beyond the room of origin. (While still protecting the MOE better than the domestic standard) If the BS people have decided that a sprinkler system is required above 30m then I would assume (I stand to be corrected) it is not primarily to protect the persons in the flat of origin, but to protect the building, and the people in that building. This is clearly not achieved by installing a system that is only designed to protect the MOE from the affected flat/dwelling.
Also:
ADB has a distinct change in the guidance at 30m.
BS9999 has a distinct change in the guidance at 30m.
BS9991 Has a distinct change in the guidance at 30m.
I am sure you can take it up with them.
In fact, get a comment in on the draft review. That would be a better use of your time.
-
And, to clear something up, I am not saying that the domestic system is suitable under 30m, the domestic system is only suitable to protect the MOE as mentioned before. This is regardless of height.
-
I think I would challenge your interpretation, and in any case, BS 9251 assumes that all other fire precautions are as per code rather than relaxed. But dont worry civvy, I will get my comments in. Trying to get you to see the light and commenting on the draft are not mutually exclusive.
-
From BS9251 Terms and Definitions:
domestic occupancy
individual dwelling for occupation as a single family unit used or constructed or adapted to be used wholly
or principally for human habitation, such as individual dwelling houses, individual flats, maisonettes and
transportable homes, with a maximum individual room size of 40 m2
residential occupancy
occupancy for multiple occupation not exceeding 20 m in height, with a maximum individual room size
of 180 m2, such as apartments, residential homes, houses of multiple occupancy (HMOs), blocks of flats,
boarding houses, aged persons homes, nursing homes, residential rehabilitation accommodation and
dormitories
Which part of this, coupled with the greater water requirement in the residential occupancy, does not make it clear that domestic systems are only there to protect the individual flat/house/shed?
-
which bit of it does?
-
Samuel, Interesting theory, but I dont think there is any statistical evience to suport it in practice
Not been to many fires have you Colin?
-
which bit of it does?
I would hazard a guess at the red bits.
-
It is clear that this new draft has not benefitted from the input of a fire engineer. Apparently the fire engineer who was meant to be consulted, did not turn up to any of the meetings.
It is obvious that everyone pro-sprinklers has been lobbying for sprinklers!
Are the proposed additional measures in places commensurate to the actual risks and experiences present in buildings today? Importantly to link staircases to basements, where is the evidence to suggest that this is a significant issue that now requires sprinklers to be considered to address this? Has a cost benefits study been conducted to reflect these recommendations? Beyond this have any of these issues been ratified by CLG as many of these are moving away from current national policy and as we all know at Building Regs stage many BCO’s will be very reluctant to move away from the written guidance.
-
The FIA has set up a small working group to review and collate responses to the draft document from member companies. We are meeting on 6 October. I am happy to take forward any observations from firenet members to the group.
-
where is the evidence to suggest that this is a significant issue that now requires sprinklers to be considered to address this?
Are basement fires not a specific problem?
-
Colin where would draw the line. An extra metre here or an extra ten metres there or would you go the whole hog and say 100 metres is fine and throw b*gger to the guidance? If you say no to 100 metres why not if an extra metre is fine.
-
Samuel, All the statistical evidence from those who allegedly were at the fires shows there is no difference that would justify longer water supplies. Ever opened fire statistics, Samuel.
Clevey, it doesnt matter about where you draw the line. You miss the point. If domestic sprinklers will control a fire adequately in low rise, so they will in high rise.
-
The BRE did a study on the cost effectiveness of residential sprinklers and their method of calculation based on financial parameters only identified a reasonable benefit in installing sprinklers in high rise blocks over 11m
http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=422
But this study was based on the reduction in deaths injuries and financial loss within the unit itself.
Whilst it it reasonable to assume that a sprinkler controlled fire will pose much less of a hazard to persons outside the flat of origin than a ventilation controlled fire, is it reasonable to allow a doubling of travel distances where a sprinkler system is provided?
Does any one know of any evidence or research that has been used to inform this decision?
-
Kurnal, as if....... Everyone knows two things, old bean:
1. Sprinklers are the answer to everything from global warming to the world economic crisis. Who says so? The sprinkler trade so it must be right.
2. When a number is too small, what do you do? Double it. It worked for the compartmentation of shops. When people were badgering Wee B's political bosses about the figure in the consultation document being too small, he doubled it. Then when they thought no one was looking, they tried to halve it. But people noticed so they left it as it was. That's how fire safety codes are written. It about works, provided there is some vague hand waving basis that underlies the figures one draws from thin air. I cannot criticise (nor would I cos wee b is a cool dude). Remind me to tell you sometime where the 4000 sq metres for duplication of fire alarm sounder circuits came from. Actually, perhaps dont remind me. I will keep it for my memoirs.
-
I have been reading further into BS9991. I noticed that no special mention is made of doors enclosing smoke shafts. This is also the case with ADB and Toddys latest doorstop. In respect of vents associated with fire fighting shafts, BS9999 makes a general comment about fire resisting doors to all shafts but I can find no specific reference in respect of lower buildings incorporating ventilation shafts.
The doors in question being the AOV that opens into the shaft on the level at which smoke is detected and works in conjunction with a vent at the head of the shaft. I was going to suggest adding a comment to table 11 - provisions for fire doors - that just like any other protected shaft that bridges compartment floors these doors should have half the fire resistance of the structure and incorporate smoke seals.
Then I remembered that this shaft will be open at the head so is there justification to treat them differently?
The door on the level of the fire will always be open so the half fire resistance rule would not really stack up. But on the other hand because the shaft is leading from a protected corridor, lobby or staircase it should never be exposed to the radiated heat of a fire on the corridor side and certainly not on the shaft side.
Furthermore there should be no pressure differential within the shaft that could cause smoke to pass out of the (open) shaft via the edges of the closed AOV doors at other levels allowing smoke into other floors.
So do we need fire or smoke seals at all? And do we need fire doors come to that?
I have an opinion but would be interested in hearing your views.
-
The Smoke Control Assoc did a guide to cover all this stuff, The plan was to put some of it in 9991. Maybe they missed this bit.
-
Hi kurnal,
There might be a problem if the top of the shaft is obstructed. There are a number of reasons why the reliability of an AOV (if fitted) might be compromised or the open top of the shaft might be partly or completely obstructed. With no or little opening at the top the pressure in the shaft will increase and possibly force smoke out into lobbies (starting at the top of the building).
Cool smoke that doesn't have much buoyancy might drift in and out of the shaft affecting floors other than the fire floor, especially if the day is hot and still and a reverse stack effect might be expected (this might push smoke into lower lobbies).
These are not likely but conceivable.
You make a point that illustrates that these doors/vents only need integrity and not insulation - same as other doors.
Stu
-
Thanks to all for your contributions, on careful reading for the third time I did find the answers to some of my concerns and we had a good meeting at FIA HQ to produce a very detailed and lengthy response.
Particular thanks to Colin Todd and Phil Martin for burning the midnight oil on this one.
-
Remind me to tell you sometime where the 4000 sq metres for duplication of fire alarm sounder circuits came from. Actually, perhaps dont remind me.
Well it was actually 2000sq M at one time and fire alarm sounder circuits used to be singular. Cos thats how codes are written. ::)
-
Just out of interest, does anyone know when this standard is due to be published? I know that the consultation has closed and that the comments have been reviewed, but when is the final version due out for public consumption?
Ta muchly