FireNet Community
April 24, 2017, 04:03:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: We are pleased to announce the appointment of Wee Brian as administrator following the recent appeal for support. It is proposed to move the site to a new platform in the near future which should greatly enhance security against spammers, till then I will continue to look after the registration of new applicants. Kurnal
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: April 20, 2017, 10:29:35 PM 
Started by Piglet - Last post by colin todd
Try not to confuse care homes with sheltered housing or general needs flats.  Care homes do not have stay put, they have PHE, and need afd in roof voids.  If flats are compartmented as per ADB (and by the way it does not offer a FR ceiling as an alternative), the roof void above each flat is like a loft space in a hosue, where you would not put AFd, unless as the wee tyrant says there is PV equipment up there, in which case you would do as per a house- put an interlinked smoke alarm up there.

 2 
 on: April 20, 2017, 09:22:31 PM 
Started by stevew - Last post by nearlythere
Engineered solutions are fine in those buildings where regulations can be monitored but, in the domestic environment, once the building is passed with its engineered solution that's the last time it will be seen. What guarantees are there that the "Solution" will be retained never mind maintained.
I would suggest that BC might look at an engineered solution just to get the box ticked and a cert issued.

 3 
 on: April 20, 2017, 09:36:24 AM 
Started by Piglet - Last post by wee brian
Lofts have Solar Panel electrics in them these days - so plenty of opportunity for ignition

 4 
 on: April 20, 2017, 09:03:18 AM 
Started by stevew - Last post by Fishy
Absolutely agree with Lyledunn... so many of the Fire Strategies I've seen over the years on the face of it tell a good story, but rely upon perfect implementation of all the fire protection measures, perfect maintenance, perfect management, & the fire obligingly starting in the place(s) that the fire engineer anticipated (and nowhere else).  Some have even relied upon you not having a fire in the first place!  One of these days we're going to have a serious fire in a fire engineered building & the **** will hit the fan, but until then the fact is that a lot of these 'creative' strategies go effectively unchallenged.

It's getting better, but building control have to take a risk-based approach to enforcement & that doesn't always allow them to thoroughly vet and challenge strategies (though some do get them peer reviewed by other fire engineers - which can actually help both the authors of the strategies and the reviewers if done constructively).  I guess as the profession matures it'll get better still - though I've seen some dreadful documents signed by people with the CEng post-nominal!

 5 
 on: April 20, 2017, 08:40:19 AM 
Started by Messy - Last post by Fishy
Have two data suites. Job done.

Had a fairly recent job where the client (owner/operator) had a project constructing a new data processing facility supporting a business-critical process.  Half-hearted spec that they'd written themselves specifying a gaseous extinguishing system, but manually operated (close to useless, IMHO - especially as the building was usually unstaffed).  Nothing else about fire protection at all - despite the fact that the most critical facility was on a first floor.

We got involved & managed to persuade them to follow BS 6266 & I ran a formal risk assessment workshop with all the key stakeholders represented.  One of the first questions I asked was "...is there a back-up facility..."?  They said they didn't need one, because they had the fire extinguishing system.  I pointed out to them that the manual extinguishing system (even if properly designed, installed & maintained - which they rarely are, in my experience) would only reduce (not eliminate) fire risk, & there were a whole host of other risks (flood, complete power supply loss etc, etc...) that it does nothing to mitigate.  Nevertheless they stuck with the single facility (primarily because the decision had already been made) and we spec'd Novec - automatically fired, together with a whole host of other fire protection & management measures.  Job done.  6 months later - just before construction - got an email from the client's lead PM... "If we were to have a back-up facility, would we need all this expensive fire engineering..."?   Roll Eyes

 6 
 on: April 19, 2017, 09:53:19 PM 
Started by Piglet - Last post by David Rooney
Taking up all the walls / fitting barriers around the bedrooms is expensive because AFD is needed to each space formed in the roof.  

The difficulty of fixing an effective  barrier where trussed rafters are used means that the designer chooses the option in ADB to use a fire resistant ceiling.  Then there is the problem of fitting a hatch in the fire resistant ceiling to maintain the  AFD in the loft.


Why would you fit AFD as well? Are you thinking the over 800mm clause 5839?

Once the FR is in place and there is no need to enter the loft, would you need to do maintenance inspections? The RP just needs to make sure once FR is in place any contractor or trades person is aware not to breach any FR walls or if they do, how to make them good.
Yes, void more than 800mm.

That would only be if you are applying Cat L1 or L2 coverage? Not sure that would provide any benefit for the property types we are discussing?

Not quite true .... it would apply to any Category ....

22.2 d)
If the system Category is such that automatic fire detection should be provided in any area that contains a horizontal void of 800 mm or more in height, automatic fire detection should also be provided in the void. Voids less than 800 mm in height need not be protected, unless either:
1)
the void is such that extensive spread of fire or smoke, particularly between rooms and compartments, can take place before detection; or
2)
on the basis of a fire risk assessment, the fire risk in the void is such as to warrant protection of the void.

and Note 4 goes on .....

If the fire risk within a void of 800 mm or more is considered to be low, consideration might be given to omission of fire detection from the void, subject to the agreement of the interested parties (see Clause 6), but this ought to be recorded as a variation on the relevant system certificate. This might arise, for example, if the probability of ignition and development of fire in the void were very low, or if the void were limited in extent so that spread of fire beyond the room of origin, via the void, were unlikely.

 7 
 on: April 19, 2017, 04:09:14 PM 
Started by Piglet - Last post by William 29

From BS 5839:
"An L1 system might be appropriate in buildings in which there is a significant number of
occupants at special risk in the event of fire"

"We had a number of people that were unable to get themselves out, you know, physically would not have been able to move even under normal circumstances," he said.

If we are talking care homes, then fine. This debates extends to sheltered schemes and general needs though as well.  Smiley

 8 
 on: April 19, 2017, 02:43:06 PM 
Started by Piglet - Last post by colin cox

From BS 5839:
"An L1 system might be appropriate in buildings in which there is a significant number of
occupants at special risk in the event of fire"

"We had a number of people that were unable to get themselves out, you know, physically would not have been able to move even under normal circumstances," he said.

 9 
 on: April 19, 2017, 01:53:51 PM 
Started by Piglet - Last post by William 29
Taking up all the walls / fitting barriers around the bedrooms is expensive because AFD is needed to each space formed in the roof.  

The difficulty of fixing an effective  barrier where trussed rafters are used means that the designer chooses the option in ADB to use a fire resistant ceiling.  Then there is the problem of fitting a hatch in the fire resistant ceiling to maintain the  AFD in the loft.


Why would you fit AFD as well? Are you thinking the over 800mm clause 5839?

Once the FR is in place and there is no need to enter the loft, would you need to do maintenance inspections? The RP just needs to make sure once FR is in place any contractor or trades person is aware not to breach any FR walls or if they do, how to make them good.
Yes, void more than 800mm.

That would only be if you are applying Cat L1 or L2 coverage? Not sure that would provide any benefit for the property types we are discussing?

 10 
 on: April 19, 2017, 10:28:46 AM 
Started by Piglet - Last post by colin cox
Were possible I always inspect the roof voids when carrying out a risk assessment and indeed recently found a lack of compartmentalisation in one that since has been rectified.
When the roof insulation quilt is laid over the ceiling joists, is it considered a safe working procedure to walk in the loft?, view only from the top of a ladder or lay access boards?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!