Undercroft car parking

[GB]

I have a domestic development with undercroft car parking (open on entrance side only) with 60 min FR to underside of apartments above. Is there anything in ADB V2 relating to the window provision in apartments above either being fixed shut or automatic closing in event of car fire within undercroft - obviously relating to flame re-entry in event of car fire?

[Phoenix]

No.

ADB cannot cover every building configuration (some might say it doesn't cover many), and what you have is slightly unusual.  With any unusual configurations care is needed to ensure that the functional requirements of the Building Regulations are met regardless of whether ADB happens to cover the issues raised or not.  Just because ADB doesn't ask for it does not mean to say that it isn't required to meet these functional requirements.  ADB does give general guidance in this regard.

I'm not saying that the windows should be fixed shut or that there should necessarily be additional safety measures in this case but appropriate consideration should be given to the hazards and risks posed in relation to the functional requirements of B3.  Have a good read of these requirements and of the guidance in ADB B3 and you should find an answer.

Stu

[CivvyFSO]

Is there anything in ADB V2 relating to the window provision in apartments above either being fixed shut or automatic closing in event of car fire within undercroft - obviously relating to flame re-entry in event of car fire?

I would suggest that the answer you are looking for is in ADB V2.

[kurnal]

I beg to differ Civvy,  I dont think there is any such specific recommendation other than for the external walls of protected staircases and external escape stairs . But I am always pleased to be corrected!

[CivvyFSO]

You misunderstood my reasoning Kurnal. The question was whether there is any information in ADB Vol 2 regarding this, my main point was simply "don't be so lazy, go read it yourself and find out, you are the consultant getting paid for you 'knowledge'" But I didn't want to come straight out with that as it may be deemed a bit rude.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Civvy,

Bad day at the office? Surprised as I always read your comments with a great deal of interest and respect. Not like you at all.

[kurnal]

Come on guys we are all entitled to get a little grumpy from time to time.

I reckon once even that kindly and benevolent Toddy chap tore me a strip off but he must have been only joking.

What is really good about the forum is the communication between those who enforce the legislation, those who have to comply with the legislation and those of us who try to advise Responsible Persons. We all have a different perspective, and personally I have quite a lot of sympathy for the views of those enforcement officers who are sometimes frustrated by the standards of knowledge and training amongst contractors and consultants.

Likewise it can be very frustrating on my side of the fence. I've been told today by an RP that my recommendation for his emergency escape lighting to be reconfigured to operate on the failure of the local lighting sub circuit is wrong because his electrician says so. The electrician says the law requires the EL to be on its own circuit powered by a dedicated MCB. My recommendation would cause him to break the law and we don't want that do we. And he's an electrician so he must be right.

[nearlythere]

Likewise it can be very frustrating on my side of the fence. I've been told today by an RP that my recommendation for his emergency escape lighting to be reconfigured to operate on the failure of the local lighting sub circuit is wrong because his electrician says so. The electrician says the law requires the EL to be on its own circuit powered by a dedicated MCB. My recommendation would cause him to break the law and we don't want that do we. And he's an electrician so he must be right.

Funny that as I have upset a few electricians as well by insisting operation on failure of sub circuit. One told me he had never heard of it needing to do this and any he has done don't.
I'm not an emergency lighting technician type but can one satisfy Kurnal's law abiding electrician's theory and the way it should be?

[kurnal]

Yes NT he was wrong. period.

[GB]

I have removed my previous reply to Civvy's post - I should not have pressed send during a period of anger - apologies Civvy by my sarcastic tone in my reply - sorry for any offence caused and I let my initial reactions take over rather than a thought out response.

I have read (and continue daily to read!) ADB V2 extensively and can not find anything relating to my posed question. My query was meant as much for debate in raising such anomalies as well as looking to be guided to other documents that may assist in my personal development as I had already dealt with the issue.

[Wiz]

I reckon once even that kindly and benevolent Toddy chap tore me a strip off but he must have been only joking.

Admit it Prof. you loved it!

However, a hot toddy is not to everybody's taste.

[kurnal]

I have removed my previous reply to Civvy's post - I should not have pressed send during a period of anger - apologies Civvy by my sarcastic tone in my reply - sorry for any offence caused and I let my initial reactions take over rather than a thought out response.

I have read (and continue daily to read!) ADB V2 extensively and can not find anything relating to my posed question. My query was meant as much for debate in raising such anomalies as well as looking to be guided to other documents that may assist in my personal development as I had already dealt with the issue.

I take my hat off to you GB you are a Gentleman. But if your posting could be considered sarcastic then some by others are positively vitriolic. All part of lifes rich tapestry.Keep em coming.

I agree with the reason for your posting here and none of us know everything. Even Colin T admits that there are precisely 2.87 things he doesn't know

Questions such as yours are particularly welcome and prompted me to have a good read. In doing this I have found a gem of a reference document that I had long since forgotten about. The 1976 edition of the Building Regulations came in a paperback size book in a buff folder and had a range of unique background information not seen before or since. Especially on the fire resistance of timber floors and plaster ceilings. Well worth the £3.22 its going for on amazon.

Back to your original topic no the subject is not covered specifically and at the time car fres were considered to be such a known quantity that if you look in appendix E definitions theres a funny little diagram E1 that covers recessed car parking areas (Why put it there???) and their impact on boundary conditions.It illustrates the general approach that car fires are a known and fairly insignificant risk.
The recent publications of the BRE research into this topic ( on the CLG website) indicate that this is not necessarily the case.

[hammer1]

Nice to see the friendly and welcoming atmosphere of the fire net forum is alive and kicking still......

[Username]

Working for an organisation that experienced such an incident, I would suggest that closed windows may not always be adequate protection.

Admittedly our incident involved multiple vehicles, but the resultant flames up the side of the building simply destroyed the windows and their frames.

Remedial works included the provision of a metal balcony outside of the first floor windows so that any flames from below will now be pushed at least a metre away from the front of the building.

[wee brian]

Interesting. My recollection was that a researcher (A german or a belgian I think) tested using balconies and found they didnt work as well as you might think. Did you base this design on any evidence?