Author Topic: Loss of secondary means of escape  (Read 33025 times)

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2006, 01:32:46 PM »
Thanks for the detail ashly - where were the heads located?

Throughout the building?
in the accomodation off the stair?
or
Just in the stairway?

Offline Ashley Wood

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
    • http://www.thermatech.uk.com
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2006, 01:39:28 PM »
The heads were located in the stairs, landings and the lobby.

Offline ian gough

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2006, 05:04:45 PM »
Kurnal, I hope you didn't read my post as a negative view of water mist systems. I think they can be very useful and have recommended them myself. However, I merely suggest that one ought to be cautious when someone might accept a system (designed to who knows what) to compensate for quite extreme lapses in traditional protection. Few of us can be so familiar with the technology and testing (which is limited as you say to ship's cabins etc).
Also, from what I know of these systems, I would question the assertion that they are cheaper. If they are to provide partial protection and limited operation times - OK they will be cheaper. But I cannot see how they are cost effective if we ask them to do the same as a fire sprinklers designed to BS 9251 or 5306 or BS EN 12845.
Incidentally, guidance is being prepared by BRE on this very topic. However, we really do need a DD which the water mist industry are trying to produce.

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2006, 07:42:50 PM »
In these days of non-prescriptive solutions to major building difficulties and the thought process of risk reduction and prevention, the provision of sufficient staff training to respond to an L1 system is sufficient.  Whilst the shop process will allow people to resort to these premises, sufficient staff training will allow escape on early detection.  Surely we are not suggesting that a fire will grow to sufficient proportions to stop escape.  All doors are fire doors, rated to such or not and even those that are rated may not be satisfactory once put in position without the frame and screen they were tested with.

I recenetly visited Rome, a european country subject to that nice piece of legislation which gave us the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation, and stayed in a lovely hotel.  The fact that it had a 4 metre ceiling height, was 8 storeys with a basement, had a basement kitchen open to the single staircase with no doors to the staircase,  the bedroom doors had vents in them, smoking was allowed within all areas with nice sand trays by the lift, not in a lobby, for the disposal of cigarette ends, had flaked canvas hose in a box for use if needed and as a by the by the staircase did not discharge to open air.  No problems for our Italian colleagues, so perhaps the earlier discussions may be considered a burden to business and ever so slightly over the top.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2006, 08:28:50 PM »
Jokar
you should be an estate agent- your talents are wasted in the fire industry!

We used to have a few hotels and workplaces that sound a little like that too. Like you I also remember  the good old days when it was ok to lose a few folk in fires- it set an example and kept everyone else on their toes.

You are right on the influence of europe though, the level playing field envisaged by the treaty of Rome has never materialised.

Ian- of course I never doubted where you would be coming from but seemed a good opportunity to air an issue that keeps getting buried for some reason. Its a typical chicken and egg situation but in this case the farmer keeps coming and selling  the egg and eating the chicken for lunch so we never seem to get anywhere.

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2006, 08:41:52 PM »
Ah, the days of paraffin heaters and open fires and loss of life in commercial premises.  What is it, I know 3 people died in commercial premises in 2003 out of 593 in total.  Thats the problem with the fire industry, it is an industry, risk reduction and prevention do not enter the equation when money earning money is a concern.  Ask the individual if they have had a fire, how large it grew to be and how it was extingusihed.  Then add was anyone affected by it and you may have a scenario to deal with.  Double guessing against guidance documents which are exactly that or recommendations in British Standards, industry led of course, isn't an exact science.  We all want everyone to be safe from fire and the risks from fire but how does the answers to the first question raised achive that at a reasonable cost to the business person.  For that type of outlay what is the return, especially from an existing building that may never have experienced a fire situation.

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2006, 08:46:43 PM »
Another viewpoint of course, is to have the building fitted with an oxyreduct system.  No fires are able to start and the atmoshere is breatheable to all, although some vunerable people may not like the experience.

Offline Ashley Wood

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
    • http://www.thermatech.uk.com
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2006, 08:33:28 AM »
Is there not a time limit that a person can be exposed to the oxyreduct system? Please tel us more?

Offline afterburner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2006, 01:47:35 PM »
Ashley can I applaud your solution and beliefs from here in Edinburgh (where your description of the premises fits a certain building very well).
 I too have used the IMO tests and specifications along with NFPA 750 (2003) to specify a HPWMP system forming part of the fire engineered solution for a life safety provision. I remember well (and still receive) the absolute rejection of the systems from more traditional colleagues. However, after much debate the sytem has been accepted by our Enforcing Authority and our Building Standards Agency as an acceptable solution.

Offline ian gough

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2006, 02:16:32 PM »
You might be interested to know that the European Commission have just set up a task group to look at the problem of fires in hotels that are causing: loss of life, injury and economic loss on mainland Europe. Maybe Jokar's hotel isn't going to be quite the same soon?

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2006, 03:22:47 PM »
There has been a voluntary european standard for hotels for years. Nobody ever took any notice of it.

The UK already does all that this code says other than prohibiting mirrors in corridors.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2006, 03:24:31 PM »
Ashley the heads are in the wrong place!!!

There is no point spraying mist into smoke that has come from a fire in and adjacent room. All you will get is wet.

Offline ian gough

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2006, 05:48:01 PM »
You are correct on both of your last 2 posts wee B.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2006, 06:00:32 PM »
Brian
You echo my initial reaction to Ashleys scenario. But then on reflection it appears that the staircase is a large area probably containing fire risk - and not a protected route. So the provision of fire doors to rooms will provide passive protection and limit the effect of a fire in a room, coupled with the L1 system giving early warning of fire. The mist system would be to cover the an incident in the staircase itself- creating some potential for the control of an incident and hopefully maintaining tenability within the stair. From this point of view it looks quite an imaginative and creative solution to  a difficult problem subject to Ashleys caveats over the choice of detection!

Of course a full coverage system would be much better still but I guess the owners could not run to it, bankers usually struggle to make a living don't they?

Offline David Rooney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
    • http://ctafire.co.uk
Loss of secondary means of escape
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2006, 06:22:57 PM »
Why not an L1 radio fire alarm as a compensatory factor, saving a lot of cabling, pipework and grief from Heritage ?

Quote from: jokar
Another viewpoint of course, is to have the building fitted with an oxyreduct system.  No fires are able to start and the atmoshere is breatheable to all, although some vunerable people may not like the experience.
OxyReduct reduces oxygen levels to below 16%.

You would need to do a very comprehensive risk assessment, and carry out a health check on everyone entering the area to check for respiratory and heart problems.

The area would also be classified as a confined space.

This doesn't sound to me like a suitable application....

Jokar, are you the rep I met recently at Sandown??   =D
CTA Fire - BAFE SP203 - F Gas Accredited - Wireless Fire Alarm System Specialists - Established 1985 - www.ctafire.co.uk
Natural Born Cynic