Linen Cupboards

[stewbow]

Am I right in saying that a Linen Cupboard, off the ground floor hallway in a Nursing Home, that already has a Fire Door Fitted, should also have AFD within it.
Also, the actual fire door to this cupboard, has plastic ventilation openings fitted towards the top of the door.
And, when is a cupboard a room, and vice versa ( this room's floorspace is about 30 square feet )
comments please?

[kurnal]

I usually would say that if a cupboard is big enough to stand inside then it certainly needs a detector, or if its smaller but contains an ignition source such as a light, fusebox, timer etc then it  may also need a detector. I may vary this depending on the location- a cupboard in a room is a lower risk than a cupboard in a corridor. But we must be mindful of the category- L1 means total coverage of every space and the roof space. If the cupboard is very small say 300mm I may relax this.

[CivvyFSO]

Also, it sounds like this linen cupboard is opening onto the escape route. If so it is pretty much set in stone that it should have detection if it is on the escape route from a sleeping risk. (Though size would be taken into account as Kurnal said, but from you describing the door I am imagining it to be a full size door, therefore the room would be of a reasonable size and would warrant AFD) The plastic ventilation grill should really be intumescent aswell. There are plastic ones around that expand and set when heated creating a fire barrier. If it is not part of the escape route from a sleeping risk area then just FR may suffice in certain circumstances.

Re: Ignition risk; Look at the possiblity of spontaneous combustion with stacked hot linen also. Its an easy risk to minimise if it is known about and acted upon.

Found some information here:

http://www.samfs.sa.gov.au/community/pdfs/22%20-%20Self%20Heating%20&%20Spontaneous%20Combustion.pdf

[Wiz]

I usually would say that if a cupboard is big enough to stand inside then it certainly needs a detector, or if its smaller but contains an ignition source such as a light, fusebox, timer etc then it  may also need a detector. I may vary this depending on the location- a cupboard in a room is a lower risk than a cupboard in a corridor. But we must be mindful of the category- L1 means total coverage of every space and the roof space. If the cupboard is very small say 300mm I may relax this.

BS recommends a detector in every cupboard of more than 1m2 in floor area in an L1 system

[Tall Paul]

I look for the SD in cupboards in excess of 1m2 as stated.  But as CivvyFSO inferred, I would also suggest that, whilst not a requirement, detection in a cupboard on a stairway would be recommended.  This is on the understanding of course that in a single stair premises a cupboard would not be acceptable anyway, fire resisting or not.

Paul

[saddlers]

Civvy,
This is one of those rare occasions when I think I am going to take a more onerous approach than yourself ;-)

If the door forms part of the protected corridor serving the bedrooms, then even intumescent louvres should not be used. What is the point of putting smoke seals on the doors, if we then allow smoke to pour out of the louvre up until the point when it expands. I would question why the louvre is there in the first place.

As for the detection issue, as you say unless it is a small cupboard, a detector should be present.

[CivvyFSO]

More onerous than myself??

I would demand that you sprinkler it!

[PhilB]

There is little point in enclosing a store in fire resisting construction unless you also provide AFD. Better to know about a small fire in the early stages  in my opinion. Enclosing in FR with no AFD could result in fire not being detected until escape route is seriously compromised.

[kurnal]

Ah.  welcome back Phil.
Following your logic
Is there any point putting a fire door on a hotel  bedroom unless there is detection - we did it for years. But it would have delayed operation of the detectors in the corridor- if we had any.

Early detection is what we need- but from early detection you cannot predict the rate of growth and how quickly the means of escape would be cut off by the fire. I would rather have to pass a developing fire enclosed behing a fire door than not.

[PhilB]

I quite agree kurnal ........for years we certificated buildings with inadequate means of giving warning, but that was before we knew what we know now, and why the L3 standard was amended.

For a sleeping risk we need the fire resistance and detection........there are of course many hotels that need to upgrade as we all know.

But many people continue to recommend making up stores and corridors without AFD. The new guides and ADB offer protected corridors as a solution for dead-ends without AFD.

For a waking risk it may be better to have all the doors wedged open so that people can hear or smell a fire in its early stages, rather than wait until a fully developed fire breaches the fire door.

Yet the code-huggers will say if you stick to the guides you cannot go far wrong.

[kurnal]

I still disagree in principle but you may be right in practice Phil.

I think the benefit of earlier detection will more likely be grossly outweighed by the much faster rate that means of escape will become untenable if doors are open.

You may gain 1-2 minutes on time to detection (by system or person) but you will potentially lose 10-20 minutes of available safe evacuation time.

In waking risks I see the new guides as suggesting either provide fire resistance or  full detection. In these circumstances the guide has taken a realistic because it is likely that doors will be wedged and rendered useless. So in this case I accept that one to two minutes we can rely on may be better than 10-20 minutes we cant. Horses for courses as usual

[bolt]

You will also notice the Vol 1 APD B no longer requires internal fire doors within dwellings to be self closing. Although this is the latest version it helps to look at the latest code to refer back to the older codes for clarifiaction when there is confusion/grey areas and then one can see by evolution where the code was actually heading.

 I think they realise that having a door slam shut in your face in your own living qaurters does not make for easy living conditions and occupants will just prop those doors open anyway. The LD2 provides the early warning and the doors can be shut when required to restrict and fire or smoke. Its much safer to make a building inherently safe by design as a first critiera and second back it up with AFD/sprinklers IF required.