Author Topic: CARE HOMES - to inspecting officers (Read 49766 times)

jokar · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2007, 05:59:06 PM »

The last time I looked, sprinklers were for property protection and not for life safety. If insurers and owners do not want the added cost fo property protection, who are we to argue. I do not see many lives lost in commercial premises from fire the high risks is in the home. Perhaps the argument should be for domestic sprinklers allowed to be fitted by plumbers and not accredited sprinkler engineers.

Tom Sutton · « **Reply #46 on:** February 01, 2007, 07:37:37 PM »

I thought fast response sprinklers were for life safety?

wee brian · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:33:22 PM »

Like everything in this game - it depends. Sprinklers can serve iether or both functions depending on the premises and the design. But if they are "required" by ADB then they are being used for life safety.

As far as schools are concerned its hard to justify sprinklers on life safety grounds. The occupants are awake and supervised. Lots of schools do burn down though, so there is a strong argument for better protection on economic grounds.

I think the insurers are getting behind this issue so I expect we will see a lot more sprinklers in new schools.

kurnal · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:50:52 PM »

I was a fire officer, my Dad was a school teacher many years before. In the early 1970s my Dads school was burned down in an arson attack. His diary account was was very atmospheric and moving as he detailed the impact and loss of key coursework and the devastating effect of the fire on the education of his pupils. Of course the ultimate decisions are based on ££££s but the lost opportunities and the impact on the community are really what counts. Sad thing is that it has to be in the politicians back yard to get that message home.

Tom Sutton · « **Reply #49 on:** February 02, 2007, 09:13:51 AM »

Quote from: jokar

The last time I looked, sprinklers were for property protection and not for life safety.

I agree with you wee brian but I was questioning jokar first sentence.

jokar · « **Reply #50 on:** February 02, 2007, 10:30:28 AM »

How quickly do the heads operate and get people away from the premises? The fire alarm system should do this before ever a sprinkler head operates. Life safety systems are still the same system but with quicker operating heads, aren't they?

Tom Sutton · « **Reply #51 on:** February 02, 2007, 11:47:39 AM »

Of course that’s why they are called rapid response I am not arguing the pros and cons just that there are systems designed for life safety.

jayjay · « **Reply #52 on:** February 02, 2007, 12:28:44 PM »

Pleased to say that under the Building Schools for the Future programme six schools are being built that I will be looking after, will all be fitted with sprinklers, also a new childrens home being built also being fitted with sprinklers. If you dont recommend or advise they will never be fitted

wee brian · « **Reply #53 on:** February 02, 2007, 01:26:38 PM »

Dont get too excited about response time. Regardless of which type you use the people in the immediate area of the fire will be gone before the sprinklers operate.

The life safety impact is more relevant to protecting people elswhere in the building from the fire.

kurnal · « **Reply #54 on:** February 02, 2007, 04:32:54 PM »

You may have also noticed that the old limit on compartment size for schools of 800sq m no longer applies- see table 12 of approved document B. It would appear that schools are now treated as assembly buildings with unlimited compartment size for single storey and 2000 sq m for multi storey buildings. Another safeguard that has saved a number of buildings bites the dust.

Pip · « **Reply #55 on:** February 02, 2007, 05:09:59 PM »

Quote from: kurnal

You may have also noticed that the old limit on compartment size for schools of 800sq m no longer applies- see table 12 of approved document B. It would appear that schools are now treated as assembly buildings with unlimited compartment size for single storey and 2000 sq m for multi storey buildings. Another safeguard that has saved a number of buildings bites the dust.

Possibly not so, and I am only quoting draft BB100 (which the new ADB says schools should be built to BB100) table B3 max compartment if on ground floor if unsprinklered-800m square, sprinklered -unlimited.

kurnal · « **Reply #56 on:** February 02, 2007, 05:31:51 PM »

Thanks Pip. Thats better. Do you know if I can download a copy of BB100 anywhere?

ian gough · « **Reply #57 on:** February 02, 2007, 05:40:47 PM »

Quote from: wee brian

Dont get too excited about response time. Regardless of which type you use the people in the immediate area of the fire will be gone before the sprinklers operate.

The life safety impact is more relevant to protecting people elswhere in the building from the fire.

Come come Wee B....that's not exactly what the 'Cleckheaton' tests or BRE Report found - certainly not regarding BS9251: 2005 systems.

stevew · « **Reply #58 on:** February 02, 2007, 07:59:58 PM »

Staying on the sprinkler thread I attended a meeting with a fire officer today.
The meeting was in connection with a three storey single staircase HMO. The view of the FA was that if a BS9521 system was installed there would be no need separate the risk areas from the staircase with fire doors.

It appears to me to be a good trade off for the client. The only thing nagging away in my head is the fire officers comment that we want the smoke to enter the escape route to activate the smoke detection system . With this type of premises I do not see occupants responding that urgently to an alarm. My concern is that by the time they enter the escape route may be compromised by smoke.

Does the arrangement work?

Comments please.

wee brian · « **Reply #59 on:** February 04, 2007, 09:11:06 AM »

The fire officer is talking rubbish

News:

Author Topic: CARE HOMES - to inspecting officers (Read 49766 times)