FRA in Schools

[idlefire]

I have had very little to do with schools since the days of Building Bulletin 7.

I would therefore be very grateful if someone could give me the heads-up on the common issues that might be found when undertaking fire risk assessments in schools these days.

[kurnal]

Building bulletin 100 has replaced BB7 and if you download the right version ( a thin initial draft is easily found on Google- beware ) is very informative and contains much useful back ground information. It's well over 100 pages - my only criticism is its a bit OTT in treatment of some issues such as coat hanging areas - treating infant schools and comprehensives in the same way when the risks are clearly very different. Obviously it's not intended to be applied retrospectively but is a good source of guidance to inform a risk assessment.

[Golden]

To add to Kurnal's observations - BB100 2007 version is the latest but many new schools are being constructed to BS 9999 and engineered examples plus a mix and match of all three. Commonly many schools are being fitted with AFD which eases some of the problems, schools are getting more secure which reduces the risk of arson and most are getting to grips with general H+S management so you'll find most have reasonable PPM regimes.

Downsides are generally lack of training and still using corridors as display areas and cloakrooms however with AFD and the general lack of ignition sources I tend to assess each circumstance on its own merits.

[Phoenix]

Schools are often designed to BS9999 because, amongst other less onerous recommendations, this route is less likely to lead to a recommendation for sprinklers and compartment sizes can be as large as 8,000 sq m instead of BB100's 800 sq m.

And yet, BB100 is an entire book aimed at providing guidance for school design and BS9999 makes only a handful of references to schools and does not address them directly at all.

The introduction in BB100 makes it quite clear that it is the guide that should be used for all school design.  BS9999 makes no such claim.  As I said, BS9999 does make a few sideways references to schools and, personally, I think that these should be removed.  Some less scrupulous fire engineers take the fact that schools are mentioned in BS9999 to indicate that it is an appropriate document for the design of schools.  BS9999 mentions the word 'chair' many times but I wouldn't use it to design a chair.  It mentions the word 'snake' (once) but I wouldn't use it to determine if a snake I stumbled upon was poisonous or not.

I concede that schools don't get built nowadays without at least one atrium and they might contain theatre type seating so there are often parts of the school where the best guidance is from BS9999.  But not the whole school.

The original post was about fire risk assessments and I appreciate that BB100 is not a FRA guide and that BS9999 can offer useful information regarding matters that fall under the FRA (for example, fire safety management policies) so I'm not saying don't use BS9999 for a FRA but I'm also saying that the base design, if the building is newish, should be expected to conform to BB100.  [Again, I appreciate that a FRA is not likely to make recommendations for reducing compartment sizes or fitting sprinklers because the RR(FS)O is not set up to properly address these issues - but this is all the more reason for the AHJs overseeing new builds to adhere to the correct guidance].

One other thing, in the table of 'typical risk profiles' in BS9999 it has classroom down as A2 and I have seen fire engineers take that to mean that the whole school is A2.  This is, of course, absolute nonsense for modern schools which hold open days, parents' evenings, adult learning events and other events where members of the public use the premises.  Yes, a classroom might have the occupancy class A - how can you not be familiar with the layout of a classroom in which you are sitting??  But it would be an unusual school if all the different user groups where familiar with the layout.

And as for cloakrooms, I do have to agree with BB100 in considering that they should be separated from escape routes. 

https://www.tes.com/article.aspx?storycode=363613

[kurnal]

All I would add is a further caveat that the BSF programme initiated by the govt in 2000 came with a number of exemplar designs for schools, produced as a result of a competition for architects and judged by politicians with little if any oversight by those with a regulatory role. Many such designs were crazy and unworkable. They were to form the basis of PFI schools, I don't know how many, of these exemplar designs were built:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Schools_for_the_Future

The BSF and  PFI new schools, together with many schools funded by  property  developers as part of planning sweeteners  fell far short in design terms. Such architects often failed to recognise how schools function - the fact that at lesson change times all classrooms empty simultaneously but all occupiers move in conflicting directions through the corridors and staircases creating log jams and this coupled with the fact that all occupiers carry bags and take up more room means that designing corridor widths and door widths / Opening swings for means of escape will not serve the schools operational needs well. Furthermore such developers hugely underestimate wear and tear on doors leading to multiple early failures. Hold open devices are essential. As is adequate space for the storage of bags which otherwise are dumped anywhere creating obstructions and trip hazards. Another stupid common design mistake is to create storage spaces in staircase lobbies for bags and cloaks, such storage is NEVER tidy, apart from the implications for the protected route.

Also in new schools look out for excessive travel distances in high risk rooms such as labs compared to design guidance, often overlooked, exit pass routes that pass through inadequately sized prep rooms which due to their inadequate space leads to obstructions, and inadequate or no provision for the safe ventilation of chemical store cupboards.

I recently assessed a new 4 storey comprehensive school each floor linked by open wells and atria as Phoenix observed where open plan multi purpose areas, library, self study, dining areas and circulation spaces were effectively interlinked for reasons of heat management and ventilation. The result was bedlam making use of many such areas impossible. The school was sprinklered in lieu of compartmentation to an OH standard but had many storey height fire doors controlled only by heat detectors both sides so smoke damage was likely to be a major problem. The school manager yearned for the space and practicality of his now  demolished 1950s building.

another school has had to implement a very inefficient one way system on all floors and staircases for lesson changes.

[Golden]

Phoenix although I agree with everything you state Kurnal has explained the current reality (heat management is another interesting reality in the modern school that completely messes up rational FS thought!). Unfortunately architects don't think about circulation of students at class change and for most fire safety is an afterthought that can be resolved by paying a fire engineer to design cut and paste a generic fire strategy to get past the LABC or AI. The build standard also varies and in my experience is in directly correlated to the number of badges that the principal contractor displays on their website - the more badges the lesser the standard. The OP asked for a heads up on common issues so although BB100 is a good starting point it would be unwise to expect many schools built post 2007 to comply and in reality risk assessment is the only way to proceed; did someone mention sprinklers should be fitted in all new schools?

As well as the other user groups that you state I've often found summer schools and the like where the people running the events are not much older than the attendees and the premises managers occasionally don't understand that they need to unlock all of the normal doors to facilitate the means of escape.

[idlefire]

 Thanks for all the responses gents.