9999 Risk profiles

[FSO]

Hi All

A little issue, I would like some opinions on please.

9999 would suggest that shops fall under the B3 risk profile (im sure its a matter of opinion there though).

The single direction travel distance for this risk profile is suggested at 16 metres. However in the CLG guide for Offices and shops, a medium risk shop is is the usual 18 metres.

If you have AFD (with an obvious advantage) and a ceiling between 3- 4 metres you can extend this distance to 19.3 according to 9999. Which are obviously huge enhancements on the assumption of having nothing at a medium risk shop in CLG guides.

This just does not seem to make sense to me. Conflicting guides yet again or am i just missing the point?

Your opinions would be welcomed.

J

Regards

[CivvyFSO]

It will possibly be the fast fire growth rate that is not taken account of in CLG guidance.

[JC100]

It was mentioned by the speakers on my 9999 course (one of which was on the 9999 board) that Table 5 - Examples of typical risk profiles should be removed as it causes confussion like this and is going to be looked into.

The example they used was that a bar is down as a B2 risk profile. Where does someone draw the line with a bar, is it a small village pub with very few combustibles (B1) or is it modern bar with curtained booths, candles and dancing girls (B3)? To label building types in examples could be dangerous.

[kurnal]

What happens in a shop when the alarm sounds? Customers ignore the alarm and carry on shopping till they are told what to do. Then they go to the tills and try and pay for what they have in their trolleys and argue about having to go and stand out in the cold before they can finish their shopping. Staff wonder whether to start ther evacuation or not and tend to stand around looking confused till someone on the  non fire rated tannoy tells them what to do.

The travel distances all date back to the post war building studies and the old 0.8m/sec on the flat and 0.6m/sec on stairs and units of exit width and have been interpolated to the nth degree for the purposes of writing simple guidance for us practicioners. Meanwhile the fire loading in shops has changed beyond all recognition from the days of brown paper bags and horsehair.  

Despite all this I could have safely made my way 100m in a dead end condition past the fire had I responded immediately the alarm sounded or smelt the smoke. I believe that in its attempt to give us positive tangible benefits of high ceilings and early detection the new guidance has become far too pernickity and definitive in terms of travel distance and percentage enhancements when all invariably comes apart in an emergency due to the human factors in the management of an emergency.

It could be very difficult to justify in court but I rely on whether my bottom twitches or not when auditing standards in premises.

[FSO]

It will possibly be the fast fire growth rate that is not taken account of in CLG guidance.

Thats exactly my point. The suggested risk profile of any type of shop is B3.

This makes it a little difficult to justify that a shop is B2 when the information supplied about fire growth is very little.

If shops are that high risk, why would CLG guides suggest that even a 'medium' risk premises is 18 metres. Surely a meduim risk is between a B2/B3 (which convieniently is 18 metres) with no scope to calculate for this.

I feel the risk profiles are a little limited 

[FSO]

What happens in a shop when the alarm sounds? Customers ignore the alarm and carry on shopping till they are told what to do. Then they go to the tills and try and pay for what they have in their trolleys and argue about having to go and stand out in the cold before they can finish their shopping. Staff wonder whether to start ther evacuation or not and tend to stand around looking confused till someone on the  non fire rated tannoy tells them what to do.

The travel distances all date back to the post war building studies and the old 0.8m/sec on the flat and 0.6m/sec on stairs and units of exit width and have been interpolated to the nth degree for the purposes of writing simple guidance for us practicioners. Meanwhile the fire loading in shops has changed beyond all recognition from the days of brown paper bags and horsehair.  

Despite all this I could have safely made my way 100m in a dead end condition past the fire had I responded immediately the alarm sounded or smelt the smoke. I believe that in its attempt to give us positive tangible benefits of high ceilings and early detection the new guidance has become far too pernickity and definitive in terms of travel distance and percentage enhancements when all invariably comes apart in an emergency due to the human factors in the management of an emergency.

It could be very difficult to justify in court but I rely on whether my bottom twitches or not when auditing standards in premises.

Totally agree with you Kurnal.

In this case I am trying to apply 9999 to a small post office/newsagent with slightly extended travel distances where AFD in a basement would have a good advantage.

The bottom twitch is always a reliable method

[CivvyFSO]

[This makes it a little difficult to justify that a shop is B2 when the information supplied about fire growth is very little.

Look in BS7974, fast fire growth is standard for any shop. Also look in the average shop and you have to appreciate why this is the case. It could be that certain shops could be risk assessed down a group depending on the contents, but the design stage is generally looking at a shell, or allowing for future use. i.e. You might have a shop selling ceramics that would certain not have a fast fire growth, but by allowing a medium growth rate and all the dimensions particular to that, you limit the future use of the shop.

Sprinklers quite obviously knock this fire growth down, hence the switch to medium growth which tallys with the "2" part of the rating.

[nearlythere]

What happens in a shop when the alarm sounds? Customers ignore the alarm and carry on shopping till they are told what to do. Then they go to the tills and try and pay for what they have in their trolleys and argue about having to go and stand out in the cold before they can finish their shopping. Staff wonder whether to start ther evacuation or not and tend to stand around looking confused till someone on the  non fire rated tannoy tells them what to do.

The travel distances all date back to the post war building studies and the old 0.8m/sec on the flat and 0.6m/sec on stairs and units of exit width and have been interpolated to the nth degree for the purposes of writing simple guidance for us practicioners. Meanwhile the fire loading in shops has changed beyond all recognition from the days of brown paper bags and horsehair.  

Despite all this I could have safely made my way 100m in a dead end condition past the fire had I responded immediately the alarm sounded or smelt the smoke. I believe that in its attempt to give us positive tangible benefits of high ceilings and early detection the new guidance has become far too pernickity and definitive in terms of travel distance and percentage enhancements when all invariably comes apart in an emergency due to the human factors in the management of an emergency.

It could be very difficult to justify in court but I rely on whether my bottom twitches or not when auditing standards in premises.

Totally agree with you Kurnal.

In this case I am trying to apply 9999 to a small post office/newsagent with slightly extended travel distances where AFD in a basement would have a good advantage.

The bottom twitch is always a reliable method

FSO. Why would you not consider a small post office a place where persons would be familiar with their surroundings and attract an A2 or even an A1 profile.
Scenario. - Small post office with one way in and as such one way out. Exit door obvious from any point in public area. Travel distance within guidelines. Open floor area.
 
Would you not consider that a stranger walking into the public area would be immediately familiar with his surroundings in such a short time period?

[CivvyFSO]

In this case I am trying to apply 9999 to a small post office/newsagent with slightly extended travel distances where AFD in a basement would have a good advantage.

Just being awkward for a second...

Why are you as an FSO trying to apply 9999? The document should be used in its entirety, (i.e. assumed management levels etc) not just looking at certain sections to justify extended travel.

IF the basement is not seperated from the ground floor (not knowing if any of the small premises guidance fits) then really the detection in a basement would only really compensate for the lack of fire resistance, not for the travel distance. Look at the ground floor as a risk on its own. Detection in an open plan ground floor is of no benefit in a shop as the fire would be visible before detection picks it up anyway.

Also a typical newsagents is stacked to the roof with nicely packaged combustible content (papers, crisps, newspapers, magazines) which would IMO warrant the fast fire growth rating.

[FSO]

In this case I am trying to apply 9999 to a small post office/newsagent with slightly extended travel distances where AFD in a basement would have a good advantage.

Just being awkward for a second...

Why are you as an FSO trying to apply 9999? The document should be used in its entirety, (i.e. assumed management levels etc) not just looking at certain sections to justify extended travel.

IF the basement is not seperated from the ground floor (not knowing if any of the small premises guidance fits) then really the detection in a basement would only really compensate for the lack of fire resistance, not for the travel distance. Look at the ground floor as a risk on its own. Detection in an open plan ground floor is of no benefit in a shop as the fire would be visible before detection picks it up anyway.

Also a typical newsagents is stacked to the roof with nicely packaged combustible content (papers, crisps, newspapers, magazines) which would IMO warrant the fast fire growth rating.

Yes I am aware of that.

FYI, This is not an FSO job

[FSO]

In this case I am trying to apply 9999 to a small post office/newsagent with slightly extended travel distances where AFD in a basement would have a good advantage.

Just being awkward for a second...

Why are you as an FSO trying to apply 9999? The document should be used in its entirety, (i.e. assumed management levels etc) not just looking at certain sections to justify extended travel.

IF the basement is not seperated from the ground floor (not knowing if any of the small premises guidance fits) then really the detection in a basement would only really compensate for the lack of fire resistance, not for the travel distance. Look at the ground floor as a risk on its own. Detection in an open plan ground floor is of no benefit in a shop as the fire would be visible before detection picks it up anyway.

Also a typical newsagents is stacked to the roof with nicely packaged combustible content (papers, crisps, newspapers, magazines) which would IMO warrant the fast fire growth rating.

Yes I am aware of that.

FYI, This is not an FSO job

Detection within the open area is of little use to the shop occupants, I fully agree. But it is very relevant for the HMO above the shop. There is lack of FR where detection is relevant.

Anyhow, I was after opinions on 9999 only...thank you.

[wee brian]

It's interesting that a few of us are comparing 9999 with the CLG guidance, ADB etc as if they are definitive and irrefutable standards.

They are just educated guesses like anything else. 9999 is by no means perfect but there was some analysis done to produce all of these tables. Something of an innovation.

[CivvyFSO]

Detection within the open area is of little use to the shop occupants, I fully agree. But it is very relevant for the HMO above the shop. There is lack of FR where detection is relevant.
Anyhow, I was after opinions on 9999 only...thank you.

Improving conditions for people in the HMO has little relevance for travel distance in the shop then?

My opinion on 9999 is simply that the fire growth rate of 3, or 'fast' is suitable. Nearlythere had a good point regarding immediate familiarisation but looking at pre-movement times from BS7974 the unfamiliar group tend to have slightly longer pre-movement times (Thresher vid shows the problems), which could account for keeping it at B3. Sorry for dragging 7974 into it again, but I am sure that this type of thing was taken account of 'behind the scenes' in the development of BS9999 and the specific figures they came up with.

The guides are going to differ, as 9999 tries to take more account of the variations within certain groups and premises.

[Tom Sutton]

I realise what follows is off theme but I am trying to get to grips with DD 9999 which I hope is close enough to BS 9999 not to make any major difference.

I progressed fairly well until I reached width of doors and I am having difficulty understanding how you calculate the width of a door using the table 13 “Door widths when minimum fire protection measures are provided”. Could any person explain it and show me an example either on or off line?

[Chris Houston]

It could be very difficult to justify in court but I rely on whether my bottom twitches or not when auditing standards in premises.

You just ruined my dinner.  That'll teach me to read firenet while eating.