sprinkler systems in hospitals

[Guest]

I am looking at a development for a new hospital built to the Scottish Tech stds and using SHTM 81 v3. Current negotiations are set at discussions about the virtues of a sprinkler system. The trust and ppp need convinced. Does anyone have statistics or evidence, advice that I may use for a convincing presentation.

Thanks for your assistance.

[Chris Houston]

The British Automatic Sprinkler Associate will provide you with the best resources.  See www.basa.org.uk

Although I am not familiar with hospitals generally there will be various fire engineering advantages in installing a sprinkler system - things like bigger allowable areas for example might be allowed.

From a cost perspective, in addition to the above, ask your insurer how much the fire premium will be reduced in the building - it could be a very significant discount.

From a practical point of view, the obvious benefit is that they will control with no help needed 99% of fires.  Obviously in a building full of people and expensive equipment, this is a pretty significant advantage compared with waiting for the fire brigade to arrive, property damage, exacuation, injury etc.

Going on from this, all the associated costs of a major fire need to be considered, finding suitable alternative accomodation while you rebuild the property, transportation costs, the actual cost of the damaged equipment and building (although most of these costs might be met by the insurer), loss of staff moral, etc should all be considered.

If you incorporate most of these factors, you can make a pretty strong argument for spinklers in most situations.

I am sure that BASA will provide you with amore comprehenisve argument, and that the fire engineers here can explain more on the trade offs in building design that you might be able to do as a result of a sprinkler system.  And like I say, run it by your insurers, you might be surprised about how much discount they can offer you with a sprinkler system.

[Guest]

Chris, you make some good points.
I am currently working toward convincing the Unitary Authorities in my Brigade area to install sprinklers in all new and refurbished schools. The project is very successful with almost a 100% take up so far.
The point on the insurers is very valid. Zurich e.g. are offering up to 75% reduction in the premium and total waiver of the excess for schools. No reason why this cannot extend to any building but the offer may be different.
Another point worth mentioning here is that of the project accountants. One project I am dealing with (school) where we convinced the interested parties to install sprinklers was on the cost benefit analysis if sprinklers were installed. The accountant examined the figures, came back with the fact that the system would pay for itself in 9 years and would then be showing profit year on year because of the reduction in premiums.

In this day and age I would argue that in projects of this size and complexity you cannot affort not to install sprinklers. How else do you protect the assett and facility.

Speak with the Local Fire Service. They will be most supportive and will have good contacts with the Building Control Officer. (Oh the benefits of being in Scotland). They may (should) be able to offer up design freedoms that could produce significant savings in building costs. We do this for schools.
Dont be put off by doubters (excuse the pun) of sprinklers. The evidence is out there and have a look at the report on the hospital fire in Warrington a couple of years ago. Scary reading!

[Guest]

Chris, please dont use the term 'trade offs' as it implies that something is being given away. We prefer the term 'design freedoms'.
There, thats off my chest then!

[Guest]

I am sure Chris doesn't need my support but I must take issue with the semantics above. Everyone knows what 'trade-off' means...you put in sprinklers and you can increase compartment size, (for instance).
'Design freedoms' is a typical wishy-washy term loved by civil servants because it means absolutely nothing and nobody can ever come back to them and say...ah! You said I could have 'design freedoms'. What does it mean...sloping floors, pastel coloured walls, less urinals?
This move to language which absolves the regulation makers of any responsibility shows lack of conviction and leaves those who have to enforce the law with no-where to go.
I think the americans invented the term 'plausable deniability' and that is what the term 'design freedoms' invokes.
Even the mighty CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses are slowly becoming frustrated with the lack of PRESCRIPTIVE guidance. Increasingly we are hearing the terms...'tell us what we have to do and we will do it'.
Rant over and sorry for hijacking this post.

[Guest]

Talking of semantics, shouldn't that be FEWER urinals, rather than LESS?

[Guest]

Getting back to the issue of sprinklers in hospitals, just for a minute.  It would appear that there is little UK based experience of such as Gordy's post in the 'Healthcare' forum has remained unanswered since last December.  Can anyone give some specific healthcare sprinkler advice?

[Peter Wilkinson]

Dear Holland,  It is worth considering the benefits of the 'design freedoms' (or 'trade-offs' if you prefer) as suggested within SHTM81.  Look at paragraphs 6.42 to 6.51, especially 6.51.  Your presentation to the Trust and PPP could try to quantify the possible construction savings available in a modified design, whilst still remaining Firecode compliant by utilising life safety sprinklers.

[Guest]

James, you need to get out more! I think anyone can see that the point here is that there is much more freedom in the design if sprinklers are installed than just an increase in compartment size. Thats so seventies.
E.g. what about periods of fire resistance? Buildings dont understand time, they do understand temperature. So why not put the structural fire resistance periods lower if sprinklers are installed, after all you should not get temperatures in the fire compartment much above the operating temp. of the head, say 70 degrees C. Why then have elements of structure that require 2 hours fire resistance. Considerable savings can be made on construction.
Then extend it to AFD. What is a sprinkler head if its not a detector? You can cut down on the amount of AFD in certain areas and rely on the head instead provided that the system is provided with a flow switch linked to the fire alarm.
Do you need as many corridor doors if sprinklers are installed? If you are comfortable with sprinklers, you know you are not going to get a large fire. 60% of all fires are extinguished or controlled by 4 or fewer heads.
I think thats freedom in design, not trading off but hey ho, there you go.
ARUP have carried out research into the cost benefits of sprinklered and non sprinklered offices ( I think it was offices). Contact them in Leeds ask for David Charters. Hes the head of their fire engineering section. He will recall the research (I think he did it).
Also, a chap by the name of Marryatt carried out an amazing amount of research into sprinkler operations but unfortunately not in this country. I t was in Australia and New Zealand. I have a copy of the book. If you want I,ll be happy to research it for you.
It is very interesting to see more and more parties looking into the benefits of installing sprinklers. The take up is encouraging.
I am working on an initiative with LEA's to secure partnerships (not too pink and fluffy for you I hope James) with the aim is to install sprinklers in new schools and those that have major refurbs. The interest is astonishing. Even the accountants are on board. They calculated on one project that the sprinklers would pay for themselves in 9 years because of the reduction in insurance premiums. Zurich e.g. offer up to 75% reduction in premiums and waive any excess for fire.
You would be wise to speak with the insurers for the hospital.
With such a huge investment, what better way to protect the assett. And also have a look at the report on the fire in the hospital in Warrington. About two years ago if my memory serves me correctly.
Dont be put off, you can convince all involved with a bit of effort. The evidence is out there. Good luck!

[Chris Houston]

I'm glad that most people,  :shock: EVEN THE ACCOUNTANTS are on board here.  I think the cost benefit calculation is difficult, because one needs to accuratly calculate the annual cost of fires in the type of building.

i.e. the UK lost 96 million of schools in the UK in 2002 (sorry, I don't know the hospital figures off hand - I am sure they are less) so you should really factor in this, it is not just a insurance premium savings versus sprinkler system cost.  All the disruption of the fire (additional to the actual cost of the lost) ought to be factored in to give a accurate cost benefit analysis.

I guess if there are 30,000 schools in the UK, they each lost on avareage £3,200 per year on building fires, (and roughly about the same in additional costs) the insurance companies might have picked up most of the tab for the first bit, but they will only have increased their premiums accordingly to cover it.  Now factor that in  - and you'd be hard pushed to argue against sprinklers in schools.  If you do the same caculation for hospitals the you should get a comparible figure.

[Guest]

Chris,
the figure you quote is for 2003 I think and direct costs only!
Pity we have little else to refer to for hospitals.
When I get my Marryatt book back next week I'll have a look in there only its going to be a few years out of date.

[Chris Houston]

The figures I quote were correct to the nearest million for 2002.  The 2003 figures were a bit better (round about £73 million from memory).  

I chose to quote the direct costs only so that those not in favour of the sprinkler systems did not accuse me of over emphasising the costs, but of course, there are extra costs.  How far you take this is arguable, but it could include temporary accomodation, bussing to alternative locations (in the example of the hospital) loss of records, impact on staff moral, (in the example of a school I can think of much more) loss of unique training materials, loss of coursework, loss of community facilities, loss of pupil motivation, loss of reputation....I could go on for a while...........

[Gordy]

Holland, sorry for the delay, but I've been off air awhile. I hope my experience gives you heart.
After 15 months of exacting research and a substantial risk analysis sprinklers are now to be fitted in a proposed PICU and associated HDU within existing hospital buildings where I am the FSA. The analysis was validated and thoroughly examined in detail by an external panel of well respected fire engineers.
Some of the assumptions regarding escape from (parts of) hospitals urgently requires to be re-visited. The Warrington fire made it clear that there a situations when it will not be viable to conduct escape before the environment will not sustain life. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the evacuation of any ITU or HDU is unlikely to be viable if the fire event occurs in the ward and is not immediately controlled.
Oxygen enhancement is not an abstract probability. In ITU or HDU it is likely to occur. Soft materials such as clothing, bedding and screens are almost constantly saturated due to the continuous use of oxygen. Flame retardency of fabrics is irrelevant in these circumstances as you will find no test evidence to suggest otherwise.
A 'protect in place strategy' is the only viable one in this case. You may not save the life of the person in closest proximity to the ignition, but you may buy enough time through fire control to facilitate evacuation of the remainder.
This is not radical thinking - it is widely accepted thinking. Britain is out of step and it's time we woke up.
Warrington Hospital 2002 was a warning shot across our bows. That patients survived was miraculous luck (I acknowledge the magnificent efforts of staff and the Fire Brigade neither of whom were nor sufficiently recognised for their efforts, and to whom 28 patients owe their lives).
We've been beating about the bush since Woolworths Manchester on this one. Sprinklers have a life safety application (in some situations) and the sooner we get to grips with it the better.
SHTM 81 Appendix A now requires hospital authorities in Scotland to consider sprinklers; however I can confirm that it is currently being updated and more substantial guidance can be expected (but it's some way off yet). it is beginning to happen here, and it will continue.

[Gordy]

ref, my previous response.
I should have said SHTM 82 Appendix A and not SHTM 81 Appendix A.

[Chris Houston]

Gordy,

I'd like to make a suggestion.  If you are going to instal a sprinkler system for life safety, extend it (if necessary) to provide coverage as the relevant property protection standards.  I'm not sure how the Scottish hopspitals insure their buildings (assuming they do) but if they do (or decide to at a time in future) only a sprinkler system designed for property protection is likely to get them the maximum fire peril insurance discount.  Like I've said before, these discounts can be significant and well in excess of 50%.