Fire alarm system in hotels - Does it comply?

[Dinnertime Dave]

A colleague has this morning visited a new build hotel, the specification for fire alarm is L2. He noticed in a bedroom corridor that detection wasn’t fitted. He questioned this and was told that detection was provided above the false ceiling because that where a fire is likely to start. This would offer protection for the corridor also.

The part of the corridor serves 9 bedrooms and 24 people. This is repeated on all 4 floors. The ceiling appears to be a normal false ceiling

The alarm company say that this complies with BS5839: Pt 1.

Any views?

[kurnal]

See BS5839 part 1 2002 clause 22.3 L  on page 55.
Detectors are needed beneath the false ceiling unless perforated to the specified degree.

[messy]

How perforate is the ceiling? If it's an open grid design or has numerous holes perhaps I wouldn't be too bothered.

However, if it's a standard solid (but removable) panel ceiling, I'd argue that SD should be in the compartment (ie corridor) rather than the void.

Surely the purpose of SD in the corridor is to detect smoke in the escape route? So unless the SD could be demonstrated to be in the escape route, I'd say it's insufficient.


(sorry Kurnal- posted together)

[Dinnertime Dave]

See BS5839 part 1 2002 clause 22.3 L  on page 55.
Detectors are needed beneath the false ceiling unless perforated to the specified degree.

Thanks for that, my colleague has just found this info as you`ve posted. A bit worrying though the ceiling appears to be very similar to our office i.e. not perforated.

What I didn`t mention is that on the upper floors the corridor forms part of a dead end condition so we are not too happy.

The development is about a month away from occupation so the BCO is still dealing with. But I think a visit is on the cards soon after opening

[The Colonel]

Dave

Never mind waiting until the BCO completes his work you should be voicing your reservations to him now. Who undertook the statutory consultation for the FRS, did they pickup or perhaps miss something, check closely the specs on the plans.

When I was an IO with an FRS we had an excellent relationship with building control and worked at helping each other, once the BCO signs off the building it will be very difficult if not impossible to get things changed.

Get your thoughts into the BCO and the alarm installer so that they can see the errors before its too late and point out the correct clause of 5839

[Allen Higginson]

A colleague has this morning visited a new build hotel, the specification for fire alarm is L2. He noticed in a bedroom corridor that detection wasn’t fitted. He questioned this and was told that detection was provided above the false ceiling because that where a fire is likely to start. This would offer protection for the corridor also.

The part of the corridor serves 9 bedrooms and 24 people. This is repeated on all 4 floors. The ceiling appears to be a normal false ceiling

The alarm company say that this complies with BS5839: Pt 1.

Any views?

Sounds to me like the detectors were installed prior to the ceiling guys coming and they can't be bothered moving them!Going on other hotels I assume that the void above the ceiling is less than 800mm which would preclude the installation of detection here,unless a RA has deemed them necessary.

[Wiz]

..... the ceiling appears to be very similar to our office i.e. not perforated.

There is no way this can be acceptable. The ceiling must provide some fire/smoke resistance so it will take too much time for any smoke in the corridor (escape route!!) to reach the detectors in the voids. BS5839 Part 1 2002 recommendations for detectors in voids above ceilings (where they are required) always assume that there are detectors below the ceiling !!

[Graeme]

A colleague has this morning visited a new build hotel, the specification for fire alarm is L2. He noticed in a bedroom corridor that detection wasn’t fitted. He questioned this and was told that detection was provided above the false ceiling because that where a fire is likely to start. This would offer protection for the corridor also.

The part of the corridor serves 9 bedrooms and 24 people. This is repeated on all 4 floors. The ceiling appears to be a normal false ceiling

The alarm company say that this complies with BS5839: Pt 1.

Any views?

it maybe complies with 5839 regards void detection but not L2 for covering the escape routes.As a guess it looks like what Buzzard mentioned that the contractor fitted them prior to the false ceilings going up and now won't rectify them because his quoted time has expired but if this is not the case and they were fitted after and not below,then i would be concerned about the rest of the install,if this company thinks this complies.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Dave

Never mind waiting until the BCO completes his work you should be voicing your reservations to him now. Who undertook the statutory consultation for the FRS, did they pickup or perhaps miss something, check closely the specs on the plans.

When I was an IO with an FRS we had an excellent relationship with building control and worked at helping each other, once the BCO signs off the building it will be very difficult if not impossible to get things changed.

Get your thoughts into the BCO and the alarm installer so that they can see the errors before its too late and point out the correct clause of 5839

The letter is already in the post.

The project is through a partnership scheme so the orignal consult went to a BCO from another area whilst the inspection are being carried out by the local BCO. Unfortunately, we have a number of issues including this one all of which have been highlighted to all parties at various stages.  

The next step is to examine the ceiling tiles to make sure they aren`t perforate but, I suspect that that would be obvious by looking.

With regards to it being difficult to get things changed, in most circumstances I would agree but, without detection in the corridor we aren`t satisfying the requirements for a dead end condition.  

Thanks for the advice everyone.

[Wiz]

..............The next step is to examine the ceiling tiles to make sure they aren`t perforate but, I suspect that that would be obvious by looking. ......................

The recommendation requires pretty extensive perforation so I would imagine there would be no chance of missing it, if it did comply.

The perforartions can be any shape but must make up at least 40% of the ceiling and appear across the complete ceiling. The minimum dimension of of any part of a perforartion must be at least 10mm and the thickness of the ceiling must be no more than three times the minimum perforation. i.e if the ceiling was 12mm thick the minimum dimension would be 10mm and in the (unlikely) event that the ceiling was 60mm thick, the minimum perforation dimension would be 20mm.

In my experience compliant ceilings often give you an unsightly view of the area above the ceiling and the contents of the void, so the option of perforated ceiling is often not taken on visually aesthetic grounds.

[nearlythere]

A colleague has this morning visited a new build hotel, the specification for fire alarm is L2. He noticed in a bedroom corridor that detection wasn’t fitted. He questioned this and was told that detection was provided above the false ceiling because that where a fire is likely to start. This would offer protection for the corridor also.

The part of the corridor serves 9 bedrooms and 24 people. This is repeated on all 4 floors. The ceiling appears to be a normal false ceiling

The alarm company say that this complies with BS5839: Pt 1.

Any views?

Sounds to me like the detectors were installed prior to the ceiling guys coming and they can't be bothered moving them!Going on other hotels I assume that the void above the ceiling is less than 800mm which would preclude the installation of detection here,unless a RA has deemed them necessary.

Agree with you Buz. They didn't want to go to the expense of dropping the heads. To suggest that the fire is most likely to start in the void is nonsense. The detectors are provided in the corridor to detect smoke eminating from adjacent rooms and not neccessarily only to detect a fire starting in the corridor.
Can't see how the perforation of the ceiling is going to make a significant difference. Perforations may result in a stagnant heat barrier within the void resulting in a delay in early detection. How also are the heads going to be tested?

[Paul2886]

A colleague has this morning visited a new build hotel, the specification for fire alarm is L2. He noticed in a bedroom corridor that detection wasn’t fitted. He questioned this and was told that detection was provided above the false ceiling because that where a fire is likely to start. This would offer protection for the corridor also.

The part of the corridor serves 9 bedrooms and 24 people. This is repeated on all 4 floors. The ceiling appears to be a normal false ceiling

The alarm company say that this complies with BS5839: Pt 1.

Any views?

I wonder what their insurance company would think of the situation especially now that the problem has been flagged up. Someone ought to give very careful consideration to all the sound advice given in this forum regarding this matter.

[terry martin]

See BS5839 part 1 2002 clause 22.3 L  on page 55.
Detectors are needed beneath the false ceiling unless perforated to the specified degree.

Thanks for that, my colleague has just found this info as you`ve posted. A bit worrying though the ceiling appears to be very similar to our office i.e. not perforated.

What I didn`t mention is that on the upper floors the corridor forms part of a dead end condition so we are not too happy.

The development is about a month away from occupation so the BCO is still dealing with. But I think a visit is on the cards soon after opening

i don't think you should wait till after completion. put yourself in the owners position. some contractor has made an error and is trying to blag his way out of it. if it is not brought to the attention of the owner now he could end up footing the bill and have to endure disruption to his premise and/or a delay in completion.
 get the contractors to deal with it now.

[Wiz]

..........Can't see how the perforation of the ceiling is going to make a significant difference. Perforations may result in a stagnant heat barrier within the void resulting in a delay in early detection. How also are the heads going to be tested?

The B.S. recommendations for the size of the perforations must have taken into account the possible 'stagnant heat barrier' you mention. Perforation of the ceiling is an accepted and useful method in some circumstances. Possibly not suitable for a hotel, but consider a shop unit with a high ceiling. An appropriate open-grid style suspended ceiling might suit the owners requirements for aesthetic and practical reasons but allow detectors just on the high 'proper' ceiling (maximum height restrictions apply!) to cover all areas (saving money/detectors not visually spoiling ceiling line/keeping detectors away from damage and/or vandalism etc. etc.). Obviously, the requirements for subsequent servicing must be taken into account but it's not normally a problem where the ceiling tiles can be removed for access.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Good news is that the operator of the hotel is calling the alarm company back in to do the job correctly.