FOCUS Current affairs
significant firefighting resources. This industry presents a real challenge for conventional sprinkler protection. The current guidance contained within the LPC Rules for Automatic Sprinkler Installations 2009 incorporating BS EN 128451
does
not currently cover the use of sprinklers for this industry. It is commonplace to review sprinkler design schemes put forward by a sprinkler contractor and/or consultants in the industry which have failed to take into account commodity classification, current and future storage heights, excessive ceiling clearances and measures to mitigate large storage piles in excess of 150m2
which could be mitigated by the use of both roof sprinkler protection and water monitors (cannons). Where specified, monitors should be
located in order to allow for coverage of all of the protected area, and the water supply provided should be capable of supporting the simultaneous operation of all of the monitors installed to cover the whole pit (or appropriately subdivided area of the pit). Oscillating monitors should be provided and
automatically activated by the fire detection system, by automatic infrared flame detector. In addition, a remote manual override should be considered, with the option to provide foam injection into the monitor stream. Where watermist is suggested for the waste and recycling industry as an alternative to sprinklers,
it is vitally important that full scale fire testing is undertaken to replicate and represent all areas of the site being protected.
with no aisle clearances –
Hotels Hotels are now commonly being specified with watermist throughout, as a direct replacement for sprinklers. Property developers are encouraged by the watermist industry in that it will offer a reduction in water storage capacity and saving of space. Following analysis of a design scheme for a hotel in Norway, the following deficiencies were identified: • the fire test data certificate had expired • watermist was provided to bedrooms larger than permitted within test protocol
• watermist was provided to corridors wider than permitted within test protocol
•
storage areas were not included within the design scheme
• no protection to voids >800mm was provided • protection afforded to 6m high ceilings (test protocol stated a maximum ceiling height of 4m)
• no protection was afforded to plenums I was personally involved at a large London hotel in which the watermist system failed to operate due to the use of non listed, non third party accredited, flexible connections. The installing contractor decided to procure its own flexible connections rather than use the listed manufacturer’s ones. The watermist system activated within a corridor of the
50 DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020
www.frmjournal.com
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
