Current affairs


to be dampened. Even at a lower pressure this ‘still works’, and is commonly concealed in a retrofit, as residents ‘don’t want damage’ to their homes. This system can only protect 25m2


– with a


photographic example showing how the sprinkler head is concealed behind a cap flush to the wall. This cap falls off at a certain temperature, the sprinkler activates at an increased temperature, and the installation does not need ‘serious work’. Mr Chantler outlined different system versions


through the prism of design versus cost, which showed the vast differences per flat between a gravity fed system and a pump, power and riser system; and between technology needed, installations, power, servicing, maintenance, consultant and contractor fees.


Alarm installations


Project coordination of alarm installations in tall buildings was key due to their interaction with a ‘wide range’ of other systems, stated FPA associate consultant and trainer Mike Floyd. He noted that other systems could include electrical wiring, HVAC, smoke control and sprinklers, with fire alarm specifications for residential buildings in such a state that they ‘don’t do the same things’ between sites. The Lakanal House fire ‘didn’t change


anything’, he commented, referencing the fact that the stay put policy for high rises has been in place since the 1970s. Calling this a ‘backwards bolting on’ of the concept, Mr Floyd bemoaned the ‘missed opportunities’ in high rise residential buildings for more integration and coordination. With any system there is a fear of false alarms,


given wiring and insulation in common areas and the issue of houses in multiple occupation creating extra difficulties. Some systems are ‘fire engineered by the back door’, and there are many ‘missed opportunities for interconnection’ if other cables are being installed in these areas. By not having detection systems integrated, issues can impact on stairwell strategies and evacuation. High specification systems are needed, but are


pointless, he said, if flats don’t have fire doors that are ‘anywhere near the specification’. Returning to fire alarms, he pointed out that the industry has ‘had the technology to deal with false alarms for years’, but it is only ‘filtering’ into residential buildings now, he said, giving details on how standards and installations change above ground in a high rise and how mixed systems can include individual unit detection and common area detection. Mr Floyd highlighted the partnership between


PFP, alarms and compartmentation, and cited the fact that you ‘can’t rely on people’, so a system needs to be ‘people proof’. He criticised the stay put policy as ‘nonsense’ as it ‘totally relies upon a window or a wall holding fire back’, while


FOCUS


a warning system can ‘save lives’. Digging down into the technology, he referenced multisensors that can spot flames or smoke through optical or heat detectors, while twin optical, CO and quad sensors are also available. Showing video examples of such technologies,


he referenced their ability to tackle ‘false alarm discrimination’, while a coordinated system could include an analogue addressable alarm system, network panels, a voice or PA ability, and suppression control. A ’cause and effect programme’ can occur


where the compatibility of equipment can become key, while both commercial and residential tall buildings do not feature large escape stairwells, instead tending to use a ‘limited exit capacity’ when a sequential capability is required. Open protocol panels are just one of many new options available, said Mr Floyd, who went on to explain standard requirements, managed protocols, network abilities and multisensory use. This included the importance of a critical path signal analysis, alarm zones and staging, and communication with fire and rescue service alarm receiving centres, though a phased evacuation procedure (utilising complex alarm and detection zones) would be beneficial. He concluded by referencing the importance of the type of voice or PA system that might allow for successful evacuation, including important factors such as voice clarity and cabling integrity


William Roszczyk is editor of Fire & Risk Management. For more information, view page 5


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2018 47


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60