Distance of Cooking Facitlies from Exit

[JT]

Thanks Kurnal that's what I was just typing and quoting.

BS9991:2015 gives a lot more information on this so worth a look.

For example, the travel distance of 9m may be extended to 20m if AWFSS and an LD1 fire detection and alarm system is installed.
Cooking facilities should be sited away from the flat entrance door and internal escape route.
So that brings us back to the original post of what is remote, away or adjacent to the door. This would infer to me radiated heat is the issue. As wee Brian has said, can you comfortably walk past a chip pan fire at 6m? Yes. When justified with radiated heat calcs the AI or fire service are satisfied.

There are several other limitations such as ceiling height and sizes of open plan flats (16mx12m) and kitchens greater than 8m x 4m should be enclosed.

[col10]

JT you quote WB  at 6m .  Wee b said ok at 6 feet.  Big difference.

[JT]

Typo Colin. 6ft is correct, I go by 1.8m in any case.

[col10]

9991 says that the cooking appliance should not be adjacent to the entrance.  The 9991 guidance appears to be taken from the NHBC Foundation document, which  only considers one open plan layout in which the cooker is off the circulation route  by about 1.8m but mid way between the enclosed bedroom and the entrance door, so for part of the escape route you are moving away from the cooker ,i.e. with your back to the cooker.

[wee brian]

yes, 1.8m is about 6 feet!. the 9m is a travel distance and nothing to do with the question at hand.

tbh, my mum set fire to a chip pan and then carried it into the garden (not recommended) her arms are a bit less than 6' long.

[kurnal]

She was very lucky. I remember a very distressing fire in which an elderly lady tried to carry a burning chip pan into the communal areas of a sheltered housing scheme (into a dead end corridor)  as she walked forward the draught caused by her movement caused the fire plume to envelop her upper body and head. She dropped the pan spilling the burning oil down her clothing and overcome by the effects she died a painful death at the entrance door to her flat.

Everybody- ban the pan, if you need to fry chips buy your family members a thermostatic deep fat fryer.

[colin todd]

Brian, ever since fire safety codes went metric I have believed the myth that 1.8m=6 feet.  So I have always quoted my height on hospital forms as 1.82m, in the naive belief that if I added an inch to 1.8m it would be right for my height of 6'1''.  At a hospital appointment last year they told me I was 1.86m, so I told them either I had grown or their thingy was wrong.  They measured me three times, while I patiently began to explain that I always remember that 1.8m is 6 feet.   They looked puzzled and equally patiently explained that 1.8m was NOT 6 feet, so where did I get that from.  They did not understand the answer F***** fire safety codes.

[kurnal]

I'm surprised at you Colin falling into the metrication trap of mixing your units. Adding an inch to 1.8m indeed! No wonder you were confused.

Much of the timber retail / DIY industry fell into the same nightmare in the 1970s when suppliers started supplying in metric lengths and many retailers, right up till about 1980 decided that 2m = 6 "metric feet" for sales and pricing purposes.

[Revol]

Interesting read ... I've seen a number of design proposals and justifications from designers and fire engineers for positioning the cooker next to the door. This is very common in the current commercial model for student accommodation. Personally I don't buy the generic 1.8m 'rule'. I have seen some of these situations modelled and have seen justification for cookers much closer to the door than one might think. Very much depends on the design fire however. Seems to be a bit of an industry wide wide issue with inconsistent approaches from regulators, both LA and AI.

[kurnal]

Basic fire safety principle - don't let the fire get between you and your exit. The cooker represents the highest risk in the accommodation. There is only one exit. Human weaknesses including absent mindedness, distractions, intoxications frequently result in cooking equipment unattended. I would take some convincing that modelling takes account of the fire development that can arise from such human factors. 

[Revol]

Kurnal, I fully agree there are many factors to be considered ... the human element is actually probably more complex than the fire phenomena. What is worth consideration however, if we ignore radiant heat for a moment and model the ?code complaint? layout (Diagram 3 of AD-B) from the perspective of smoke the room becomes untenable very quickly, this is the case for wherever you sight the cooking facility. In simple terms unless you are awake, or are awoken by the fire alarm very quickly then there is little chance of survival. It?s begs the question how ?safe? the approved code compliant solution is.   

[kurnal]

None of the general fire safety codes take account of tenability in the room or origin in any meaningful way and there are pointers in other codes such as BS5839-1 category L3 that confirm that the detection is only to protect the means of escape outside the room involved in fire. It has long been a frustration for many of us that this goes against the philosophy of the current legislation- some people are more relevant than others! Some fire brigades have been pro-active in going beyond the standards and requiring smoke detection in all rooms but there is no empirical data to prove the value of this or otherwise. Similarly BS9991 and the BRE report provide for bedrooms that are inner rooms in some circumstances.

I was careful to avoid stereotyping but the fire death statistics for young men indicate a combination of alcohol and chip pans are a significant issue. Similarly students from overseas have different catering needs and frying can be very common amongst some nationalities. All of my former university clients used to tell me frying was banned, my inspections proved this not to be the case and the Universities involved would never enforce their policies. Similarly most had policies of verification before calling the fire service- the worst case involved a 15 minute response time by security staff just to get across the site. Not relevant to the siting of the cooker of course.

There are two sides to potential fire deaths - tenability in the room is one factor, and rescue by the fire brigade another factor. If the fire is next to the door then potential rescuers will be further delayed in entering the room to carry out the rescue. I accept this is likely to be statistically insignificant with no data to prove my argument either way. Just good old common sense. And besides its as much about escaping safely without injury as about dying in a fire.