Res, care and when sprinklers are required

[Ashley Wood]

Perhaps someone can shine a little light on this one?

My client is extending a residential care facilty. The current home has accommodation at first floor level which includes four double bedrooms. These bedrooms each contain two single beds. The double bedrooms are retained in the new scheme, effectively unaltered, and againe each will contain two single beds.
 
The Building Inspector is insistent that, as we have double bedrooms at first floor level each containing two single beds, then the whole of the existing building must be sprinklered. If these double bedrooms were each to contain one double bed, then sprinklers would not be required. The relevant section of the Building Regulations is Approved Document B vol. 2, paragraphs 3.49 and 3.52. I have explained to the BC Officer that these rooms are under former control and we are improving the means of escape and fire detection but he will not relax this requirement. I believe therefore that our only way forward is to look for a fire engineered solution.

Any ideas as to why a double bed does not warrent sprinklers but 2 single beds in the same area does? The scheme is fitted with an L1 fire detection system throughout and has alternative means of escape from the 1st floor.

Thanks

[kurnal]

Ashley these clauses have been worrying me since the publication of the new guidance.
Why so specific? why so simplistic? why so prescriptive? And how do the clauses relate to the functional requirement for means of escape? It just doesnt stack up.
The outcome is social engineering- effectively preventing eldery couples who have been together all their married life from sharing a bedroom in their twilight years, many due to care or medical needs will not be able to share a double bed.  

Compare this with page 79 of the Res care guide that allows bedrooms to be inner rooms!

You could always use firecode as the design benchmark I suppose.
 
How do we counter it- put together a fire strategy proposal summarising the risk control measures to be applied, spell out the functional requirement as defined in the Regs,

1-clearly the focus is that two single beds represent a higher fire loading than a double bed, I suppose we could try a little modelling to investigate this but I guess the outcome will be that the room will be untenable in the same amount of time from ignition irrespective whether you set fire to a double bed or a single bed, two seperate single beds will be better than a double up till the point of flashover as the size of fire will be smaller. We could point out the beds and bedding will be fire retardant to the highest standards.

2-clearly with the compartmentation this is only to be an issue in the room of origin and the only relevant persons to consider are the two occupants and the staff who may need to help them, so why do we need to cover the whole building with sprinklers? We dont need to protect high risk rooms with sprinklers so by implication the code seems to be saying that two single beds to BS7177  in the same room represent a higher fire loading affecting the rest of the building than a catering kitchen or a lounge full of upholstered furniture?

Sadly we will have to spend a great deal of time producing a strategy document to try and justify something that is nonsense from the outset and your client will have to invest a great deal of time and money in appeals or determination. As the ADB is so specific it will more than likely be lost because the secretary of state will not question the reason for the clause in the guidance.

I wouldn't mind helping you to try to put a strategy together if you wish because this one will come and bite us all at some stage in the future.

[Ashley Wood]

Thanks for your reply Kurnal. It does seem nonsense to me. The building control officer is being totally prescriptive and not considering the overall strategy. I will see where this goes and let you know. I am proposing to do a strategy and to recommend a halfway measure i.e. put sprinklers in the rooms with 2 beds only and enhance the passive protection further.

[wee brian]

This bed thing ties back to the effectiveness of sprinklers for people in the room of origin. If you are intimately involved in a fire (ie you or your bed is allight) then they aint much help.

They are of some use if you are in a shared room and its your neighbour who's on fire.

If the rooms are intended for shared use (liek a dormitory) then sprinks are needed. If its just the odd room here and there for the rare situation where a bloke has lived as long as his missus then let it go.

[Ashley Wood]

My sentiments entirely. These rooms are for couples who want their own bed. Has anybody come across something similar and fought it and won?

[slubberdegullion]

Ashley,

I think you're going down the right route.  There are two rules that the building control officer is trying to impose, one of which is probably valid, the other may not be.  These are, respectively, putting sprinklers in rooms with more than one bed and, secondly, extending the sprinklers to the rest of the building.  

Wee Brian, above, has given the reason why sprinklers are desirable in a bedroom with more than one bed.  

But then we come to the rule that says that sprinklers should be installed in the whole building.  Clearly,in this case, the sprinklers are for a specific task - protecting an occupant of a bedroom when fire occurs in that room.  If a fire were to occur elsewhere in the premises (an unsprinklered part) then, with appropriate fire separation, it makes no difference how many beds are in each room!

The reason that sprinklers should generally be installed in the whole building is because they are not capable of dealing with a fire over a certain size (for example, one that may develop in an unsprinklered part of the building) and they may be useless in such a case.  Here, the sprinklers are required for a specific task in a specific part of the building and application to the remainder of the building is irrelevant.

Having said that, the installation of sprinklers in such premises should generally be encouraged.  We are all aware of fire tragedies that have occurred in this sort of building.  The BRE report on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers clearly indicated that the benefits of such installations outweigh the costs (when applied nationally).  

And there could be benefits for the individual owner of a home fitted with sprinklers.  Insurance premium rebates and attractiveness to prospective residents to name but two.  There would definitely be benefits if he did have a fire!

There is a forum for battles such as you propose to be fought and that is at CLG by requesting a determination.  I would recommend that.

Stu

[kurnal]

Sorry to disagree but (in my opinion)  this whole thing looks like cobblers to me.

I have been actively campaigning for resisential sprinklers for many years and am convinced of their benefits. But to make a prescriptive requirement for  a specific scenario - because that is what it effectively is when committed to the ADB- without specific evidence or research is way out of order. In my view.
 
The BRE  studies into the effectiveness of residential sprinklers did not include any scenarios or research into bed fires. Their main conclusions can be found here:

http://www.bre.co.uk/index.jsp

ADB does not bother itself with issues of how the building is used or the contents- quite rightly. ADB does not make any recommendations for fire performance of furnishings. So why does it now suddenly have to count the number of beds in a room and specifiy that a double bed is ok but two singles are not?

Please can somebody restore my faith in the system by explaining how this research - or any other work that I have missed - has led in a logical and justifiable process to  the specific recommendatons in ADB that Ashley is now stuck with?  
Or give examples of any fires that have occurred that point to this issue being a problem?

And the determination process is a hiding to nothing for the average punter.  Invariably the Secretary of State finds in favour of the published document without  questioning the content. And the individual care home owner is stuck with either a huge bill for consultancy, research and representation or complies with the whim of whoever wrote the document. Unless you are one of the huge National chains its not practicable to take it on.

[Ashley Wood]

It does seem crazy that if the double beds were remaining no sprinklers are required! Other areas in the building have higher fire potential than the bedroom but do not warrant sprinklers?

[slubberdegullion]

This is where I believe the guidance is coming from:

Sprinkler Effectiveness in Care Homes, published by the BRE in December last year.

Some quotes:

"Research from the USA ... shows that (in the US) "Nearly 50% of older people who die in fires are
intimately involved with the source of fire that kills them (e.g. their clothing or bedding has ignited).
Approximately 40% are asleep and 20% are bed-ridden at the time the fire is ignited"."

"Where a fire has occurred involving either the nightwear or bed clothes of an occupant of a bed, the fire
experiments have indicated that sprinklers alone are unlikely to operate soon enough to prevent the
occupant of a bed being fatally injured or suffering very serious injuries from flames and/or heat.
But in most situations where a sprinkler operates, other occupants within the room should survive, since the
heat and toxic gases within the room are kept within tenability limits by the sprinkler system."

Also note this:

"Fire Protection Association New Zealand, FPANZ Newsletter, Issue 119 October 2006.

This article describes a fire in a small residential community care building. The building comprised two
bedrooms, a bathroom and lounge. It was protected with a sprinkler system to the New Zealand standard
NZS4517:2003.
The two occupants secured themselves in one bedroom. One poured accelerant over them self and ignited
it; this occupant suffered 88% burns and died 12 hours later. The other occupant escaped with no injuries.
The fire was evidently severe enough to damage ceiling paint and melt a plastic light shade. It is estimated
that the sprinkler operated within 30 seconds of ignition. The room was sooted but had little other damage."

As for the determination, don't dismiss it out of hand.  Of course, the best option is to have a fully informed and reasoned discussion with the building control inspector but, if the applicant considers that he is up against unreasonable intransigence, then it is an option that must be considered.

Stu

[slubberdegullion]

Incidentally, the BRE report, "Effectiveness of sprinklers in residential premises," did look at bed fires.  Here is one of the bed set ups



and here it is on fire

[wee brian]

There have been two deaths in just these circumstances in the last month or so- One in the UK and one in Scottsdale Arizona. Elderly person intimately involved in the fire - gets fatal injuries before sprinklers are activated.

Sprinklers are great but they won't save everybody.

[Clive]

Sorry to show my ignorance, wee brian , where was the one in the UK in the last month or so ?

[Mike Buckley]

Looks to me that if two occupants are in a double bed and it catches fire a sprinkler won't save either of them, however if they are in seperate beds and one bed catches fire then a sprinkler may save the occupant of the other bed.

Half a loaf is better than no bread.

[nearlythere]

Looks to me that if two occupants are in a double bed and it catches fire a sprinkler won't save either of them, however if they are in seperate beds and one bed catches fire then a sprinkler may save the occupant of the other bed.

Half a loaf is better than no bread.

That means there must be a specific requirement to have the beds a certain distance apart. How would you calculate this distance?

[kurnal]

Similarly if a fire occurs in a cupboard on a bedroom corridor and 14 people die the Scots Parliament bites the bullet and requires sprinker protection in all care homes.

But in England we fanny about with one set of guidance dcuments that requires sprinklers if my mum and dad want to continue to live together once in care and takes not a jot of notice of whether furniture is made of straw and the room contains an open fireplace!!!
and another set of guidance for care homes that allows bedrooms to be inner rooms provided theres a smoke detector in the access room?