FireNet Community
May 25, 2017, 05:07:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The registration facility for new forum members has had to be disabled due to the volume of spammers (1 every minute) who seek to spread their worthless pornography and junk pharmaceuticals, or launch DDOS attacks to bring the site down.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: Today at 04:23:53 PM 
Started by Tadees - Last post by Tadees
What version of BS 5839 are you using I cannot find your reference?

Hi Tom,

Page 30, 2013 version, although it won't surprise me if another version has come out since I last checked, which changes 3 lines and we all have to pay for the update.

 on: Today at 07:54:10 AM 
Started by colin todd - Last post by Bruce89
Thanks Colski, 203 key, 203 diagram only, cheers  Smiley

 on: Today at 03:55:53 AM 
Started by SeaBass - Last post by colin todd
Scottish people always put salt on food before tasting it.  It annoys expensive restaurants with snobby chefs no end.

 on: Today at 03:47:07 AM 
Started by Tadees - Last post by colin todd
Old CivvyFSO did a nice job in 2010, so he knows too.  And now he works for me and knows even more than he did in 2010.

 on: Today at 03:38:36 AM 
Started by colin todd - Last post by colin todd
Bruce Almighty, the key on page 203 refers to the drawing on that page. In the other drawings to which you refer, the boxes describe the construction, distinguishing between notional and full 30 minutes. 

Let me see if can clarify; when you used to change the oil of the Dennis under the watchful eye of the sub-officer, there was a symbol in the schematic of the engine compartment that said water pump. But BruceAlmighty (aka BA) it was talking about the said component for cooling of the engine (which you constantly overran in your haste to return to your card school on Wed evenings, or your snooker for most day shifts or your bed if the fire was after 1700).  On a further page of the manual, there was a different water pump, for which the above symbol did not apply, that you used to drown the building and its environs with water to deal with waste skip fires.

Hope this helps. I remain your humble servant.

PS we will be running training courses on the guide for which you, personally, could obtain a discounted rate.
PPS Tam, I never assumed you knew half as much as I.

 on: May 24, 2017, 03:33:37 PM 
Started by Tadees - Last post by Tom Sutton
What version of BS 5839 are you using I cannot find your reference?

 on: May 24, 2017, 12:58:34 PM 
Started by Fairway123 - Last post by Fairway123
Thanks for the responses. The pathfinder information was particularly interesting.

My initial thoughts were that the engineer was having a bit of a nightmare by suggesting it. It certainly looks like he as plucked the 1:20 ratio from thin air.

 Having taken a proper look at the calculations, it is actually possible to meet the occupancy level as a B1 risk profile by allowing for 'additional measures' on ceiling height and AFD.  This gives us what we need and a margin of safety of 8%. So I need to query this with him (probably his supervisor).

Looks like we may need to speak to another engineer.

 on: May 24, 2017, 12:13:21 PM 
Started by Fairway123 - Last post by SeaBass
I think that you probably need to approach another FS professional. You can?t increase occupancy numbers through better FS management alone.  The maximum occupancy numbers are based on the available escape width, the number of escapes (if you have two, then one must be discounted, assumed rendered inaccessible due to fire)   the evacuation strategy employed the building, ceiling heights, the category of fire detection and alarm system and provision of automatic suppression. As you already have sprinklers, and the AFD is quite probably a better classification than is required, I suspect that your options are very limited.

Also bear in mind that if a fire engineer suggests a solution that deviates from national guidance, but which can?t be supported with calculations or other hard evidence, then there is a good chance that a fire risk assessor or an inspecting officer would not accept it, even if a building control officer did. 

 on: May 24, 2017, 11:17:39 AM 
Started by Fairway123 - Last post by JT
Sort of a relevant video/slight tangent. Not commenting on fire wardens but interesting one to consider.

 on: May 24, 2017, 10:41:58 AM 
Started by Tadees - Last post by wee brian
Its probably the difference between being fixed onto something rather than being next to it.

As I recall, you can get a buffer of cleaner air adjacent to obstructions (such as a downstand beam). so smoke might bypass a detector mounted close to a beam. this wont happen to a detector mounted on the underside of a beam. but you could get a delay if the beam is very deep (smoke filling down from the ceiling before it flows over the beam) so that probably why there's a restriction on the beam depth.

Of course, I wasn't on the committee so I don't know for sure.

This question has come up before - read this

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!