Type of sprinklerto be used in BS9999 submission

[memnon]

Can anyone answer this question?
We have a submission under BS 9999 were they are claiming allowance for fitting a sprinkler system into the building. No real issues I hear you cry. The issue I have is that they are fitting property protection sprinklers and I feel that they are not sufficient to claim as a compensatory feature and should be life safety.
I know that in BS 9999 the type of sprinkler is not specified however in DD9999 it is.
Bafsa admit there can be some confusion (see page  37) of link.
http://www.bafsa.org.uk/pdfs/publications/00000104.pdf

Any advice would be appreciated.
Many thanks

[ian gough]

A sprinkler system suitable for residential and domestic occupancies, designed and installed to BS 9251: 2005, is a life safety system.

For other risks, BS EN 12845 is a perfectly suitable standard and, where insurers are also asking for sprinklers, the LPC Rules (Technical Bulletins) will be applicable. However, Annex F of BS EN 12845 contains additional recommendations for enhanced protection - especially for when maintenance of the sprinkler system has to be carried out when the building is open and in use. This Annex was original written for shopping centres and was never intended to be applied across the board for all properties. 

Please contact BAFSA office for further information as necessary.

[Phoenix]

If the sprinklers are being installed to protect life then they must either have the additional features listed in Annex F of 12845 or the proposers have to demonstrate satisfactorily how a suitable level of life safety will be maintained at all material times by some other complementary means.  Maybe, for example, they propose to maintain the system when the premises are shut - not a very convincing argument - maybe they'll shut the building down if the sprinklers go off line - not. 

In general, if the system contributes to life safety then, of course, it must have the life safety features.  Don't try to read too much into any BS, especially BS9999, don't search for nuances of interpretation and meaning, the chances are they just got it wrong, god knows they got enough other stuff wrong.  [I do still like it generally, mind]

Interpretation 2 in that document you posted is looking for implicit meaning.  The authors don't set out to imply meanings; if they want to get something across then they will say it, they won't give tantalizing hints and leave the reader dangling, able to swing from one opinion to another.  They do leave the reader dangling, all over the place, but not deliberately.

Anyone who believes intrepretation 2 cannot fully understand the principles of means of escape.

Also, I'm not sure about their use of the phrase 'statutory guidance'.  I think 'statutory guidance' is something altogether different.  But I don't know, put me right if you know better.

Stu

[Phoenix]

Memnon (is your first name Aga?), I think you're absolutely right.  If the proposer has come to you for approval of this design then simply ask them how life safety requirements will be satisfied when the main sprinkler valve or the supply pipework are being maintained.  Their reply might very well be that these procedures will only occur for a relatively short period of time and so they propose to live with it.  It depends on the nature of the property, of course, but that excuse is not generally acceptable.

Stu

[Northern Uproar]

If the ommission of the text for life safety were a mistake in BS 9999, and 12845 were to be used 'in full' and include Annexe F, then why does the Sprinkler Systems section of the Shopping Complex guidance specifically require additional provisions above a 'property protection' system?

[Phoenix]

If the ommission of the text for life safety were a mistake in BS 9999, and 12845 were to be used 'in full' and include Annexe F, then why does the Sprinkler Systems section of the Shopping Complex guidance specifically require additional provisions above a 'property protection' system?

Are you referring to the recommendation for duplicate water supplies in Annex E?

[Northern Uproar]

If the ommission of the text for life safety were a mistake in BS 9999, and 12845 were to be used 'in full' and include Annexe F, then why does the Sprinkler Systems section of the Shopping Complex guidance specifically require additional provisions above a 'property protection' system?

Are you referring to the recommendation for duplicate water supplies in Annex E?

Yes - is this a tie with the open ended requirement in Annexe F (12845)?

[Phoenix]

I think they have put the mention of duplicate water supplies into BS9999 because, according to Annex F you can have a single water supply for a life safety system provided that it is a 'superior' supply (i.e. one that can effectively be relied on 100% in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances). 

But in the UK we like there to be duplicate supplies because we're not so trusting as some of our European neighbours (remember that BS EN 12845 is a European standard) so BS9999, like ADB, has included a specific recommendation for duplicate supplies which is over and above what Annex F recommends.  If this implies anything (not that I'm a fan of trying to infer non-specific guidance) then, to me, it implies that the assumed base recommendation is inclusion of life safety enhancements. 

It is such a shame they didn't make themselves clear in BS9999, I feel that all this debate is absolutely unnecessary.

Stu

[deenee]

I think there is a deliberate attempt to tune down the life safety enhancement of appendix F.

I was at the BSI fire safety conference sometime back when that question was asked and David Smith implied it was removed because majority of the committee members at that time agreed there wasn't much life safety benefit (vis a vis the cost) for the addition. My conclusion then is that the explicit mentioning of property protection standard being adequate was not made in the standard in order to pacify the other committee members opposed to the idea and to gauge how it will be received by the public. He, however, acknowledged that it is an area where they will be looking when the standard is due for revision.

Also IFE Technical Strategy Advisory Group looked at the issue in 2010 and released a clarification.

https://www.frmjournal.com/frm_home/back_issue/2010/december_2010/december_2010_regulars/dec_2010_regulars_detail/?ListItemID=1345&ListGroupID=348