Bb100

[ATS]

For those of you who don't know, a final draft version of the new BB100 was recently issued by the DfES (only to those who responded to the original consultation) for a final technical review prior to printing. Comments on this version had to be submitted by today (21/08/07).

Whilst there are still some areas that are a bit 'woolly', it is infinitely better than the first effort. It is very much based on AD-B and even provides a more realistic approach to balcony accessed classrooms than 3.12 of AD-B.

The provision of sprinklers is still subject to risk-assessment, with allowences made for the use of BS7974 etc for a fire-engineered solution.

A

[Ken Taylor]

Thanks, ATS. I look forward to the improved version.

[MDfire]

Very interesting ATS, do you know what the new draft proposes to deal with balcony escape?

[ATS]

The exact wording of that section is......

Escape routes should not be prejudiced by openings between floors. Escape routes should not be within 4.5m of the openings unless:

The direction of travel is away from the opening; or

There is an alternative escape route which does not pass within 4.5m of the open connection; or

Where rooms are accessed via a balcony, two directions of escape are available from any point on the balcony and travel distance from the room to the balcony does not exceed 18m.

[MDfire]

Thanks

[Pete M]

Guys, I have a question.  The guidance for schools was purposely removed from ADB in the 2006 version due to recognition that schools do not fit the 'assembly building' general profile and should have their own, specific guidance.  BB100 was due for ratified release simultaneously with ADB 2006 as I understand, but inherent 'problems' with document precluded the event.

Given that the current DCLG advice is to apply the guidance of ADB 2000 (with 2002 amendments) are we really now 'going back' to applying the old guidance to new builds?

In the event that a life safety sprinkler system is provided (BS EN 12845), ADB 2000 does not define any flexibility in compartment sizes for schools, whereas the draft BB100 did - this in line with other purpose groups in ADB.

The position we may find ourselves in (and I have first hand experience of this) is that some currently proposed schools may not have sprinklers included in the design because of a number of factors including the lack of compartment area flexibility which would have been contained in BB100 (this is particularly the case where 'block' insurance is used and therefore very little premium reduction is offered).  In the future, when the Bulletin is finally released we may well see an increase in the number of sprinklered schools due to the increase in design flexibility allowed.

In other words, my question is: Is there viable argument at this time for permitting an increase in school fire compartment sizes to 2000m2 now, rather than having to wait for the final BB100 release in order to push forward the argument for installing sprinklers?  The last thing we want to see is disparity between the schools in the current BSF schemes but at the moment this is precisely what is occuring.

If my comments above seem as if I want to make the provision of sprinklers appear as a trade off against compartment size that's because it is meant to.  Any persuasion that can be used towards sprinkler provision in schools is positive in my book and the compartment size flexibility follows guidance for just about every other building type.

Any comments or has anyone had experience of this recently?

Stay safe.

[kurnal]

In every other building type ADB allows an increase in compartment sizes if sprinklers are installed. As the ADs have never properly covered schools other than as a patching exercise, the tables in B3 have never been properly reviewed and never will be.  But the precedent and principal must surely hold good and withstand any scrutiny - sprinklers allow at least a 100% increase in compartment size.

I think I would approach whoever is responsible for producing BB100 and find ut exactly what the problem areas delaying its release are. And if its not compartment sizes or sprinklers I would persuade all parties involved in my project to implement those non contentious areas as far as possible. Especially sprinklers.

[Ken Taylor]

Whilst a keen advocate of sprinklers in schools, I have invariably failed to persuade fund holders to provide for general sprinkler installation in new-build or major extensions - other than for a few specific higher risk areas. Cost has always been the 'defence' and, as funding for most schools will inevitably derive from the 'public purse' by some route or another and bearing in mind the numbers of school buildings throughout the UK, I can see indications of their reticence in this respect. Areas of possible concern with sprinklers in schools are vandalism and future maintenance by devolved budgets and, from my experience of the ongoing need to constantly persuade local management to maintain good standards of fire safety, I remain somewhat apprehensive regarding 'trading off' compartment size for sprinklers.

[Pete M]

Given that the eventual BB100 will include an increase in compartment size for schools provided with a life safety standard sprinkler system there will effectively be a parallel between school buildings and all others covered by ADB 2006.  I think that most of us involved in fire safety would like to see sprinlkers installed in schools as a matter of course but as things stand (and you are quite correct regarding funding) there is little to persuade the bean counters and project managers to do so.

My question is related to the interim period (i.e. between now, where we are advised to follow ADB 2000 guidance, and the release of BB100) and whether there are good enough reasons to persuade BCOs and FSOs that the inclusion of such a sprinkler system can be used in mitigation for flexibility of compartment area as will eventually be the case anyway.

If so, there is much more of an argument for sprinkler inclusion than is currently the case.

With regard to vandalism, malicious operation etc. there is very little evidence currently that this is a problem.  Other myths, inspired by various blockbuster films which intimate that the entire buiding gets deluged in a fire, are a subject of education; a sprinkler system is not (as we all know here) a deluge system and is designed to discharge water only to the seat of the fire and thus control its size/intensity.

The cost issue is only really contended by the QSs but the reality is that more capital is usually spent in schools on the floor coverings!

Fire safety system maintenance has always been an issue (I have seen this first hand in high hazard industrial situations where the consequences of system failure could be much worse than if it were a school) and this will never go away.  Better to have systems widely installed and accept that maintenance may be an issue in some than to have no automatic fire protection systems installed at all.

I too have failed on a number of occasions to bring stakeholders round to 'wanting' sprinkler systems so I know exactly what you are saying.  What I am looking for is something for the interim period (think I said that before); I currently have a small number of clients who are stiking to the DCLG recommendations to follow ADB 2000 for now and will then (once BB100 is published) will install sprinklers to gain the additional freedom of design which is afforded by the increase in compartment areas.

[Ken Taylor]

Whilst there seems to be little vandalism with regard to existing sprinkler installations, the concern is that there is a lot of general vandalism in schools. However there is also quite a bit of arson around too.

[BCO]

If they want to use the old ADB they may be a bit stuck now as the new BB100 was published last week. Here is the link for the document.  http://www.bafsa.org.uk/pdfs/publications/00000050.pdf

If the application was placed, or initial notice server prior to it publication (31st Oct I think) then the old ADB could be used.  If this is the case then increasing the compartment size up to 2000m squared with the provision of sprinklers is a reasonable approach and one that appears to be quite common with the BSF schools which have been submitted in the interim period (post ADB 2006 and before publication of BB100)

Pete M, I think now that the document is published it will be a lot more difficult to argue (with the regulator) for additional design freedoms (over and above the increase in floor area to 2000m) based on the additional sprinkler provision. As there is now a current document that requires life safety sprinklers with compartment size between 800-2000m, new open spatial planning rules, and many other quite onerous provisions, it is unlikely that a regulator will agree to anything less.

Regulator aside, the BSF schools are British Schools for the ‘Future’ some may say it is not appropriate for the developer utilise old legislation/guidance for our ‘future’ schools when they are being publicly funded. (even if the legislation allows it)

[Ken Taylor]

Thanks for the link, BCO. The document supplied by the BAFSA contains editor's notes with references to review and pages reserved blank for editing- so, presumably there will be a little 'tarting up' before it goes on sale. At first glance, it seems to have improved and expanded since the early draft and I'm pleased to see more 'figures' and 'diagrams' which should, in my experience, please some architects. In fact, it now appears more reminiscent of the old BB7. The 164 pages should prove interesting reading!