C
chilliwilly
With regards to design and not isolation.
Digressing from the thread.
I know what your saying my learned friend, and I can understand why you and most other folk wouldn't get involved with fire risk assessment. But beleive me its not all smoke and mirrors if you pardon the pun, most of it is just common sense. And seeking information where its not readily available such as incipid stage, flash ignition temperatures, fire spread and passage, and other data associated with fire and combustion products.
I always conduct my own risk assessments when designing fire alarms where there is no other information known or available, and I make the person ordering the work aware that a charge will be made to visit the site, and a risk asessment will be provided in writing signed by me, along with a quote. After all if I didn't, I wouldn't know the choice of detection to select, or the class of system in general, and I certainly wouldn't use the services of any one else to carry it out, as they may overlook essential data.
In the case of a design from external consultancy based on a given risk assessment from these "professionals". I will always raise any questions or comments that I am concerned with where I feel an over sight may exist, as I do feel that they don't visit sites enough and only send out a questionaire to the person organising the work. And when they do visit sites, for them to miss a storage cupboard with combustable products stored within it and bearing the COSH and flammable liquid signs on the door. Or where the amount of detection doesn't suffice the minimum amount offered by BS 5839, or where an underdrawing/crawl space, or above a suspended ceiling, the space volume and type of contsruction qualifies for detection.
So as you can imagine, I will always enquire as to why detection or audible and visual indication hasn't been considered in these cases, or an increase in protection in the adjacent corridor or room in the case of storage. And I always note it on the installation and commisioning cert as a departure, whether they like it or not.
In the case of the council, yes they do usaully refer to some doc for design that isn't readily available to the public. But I will always question and or make them aware of fire risks or design departures that I feel they may have overlooked. And they never do like it when they see a departure on one or more certs, despite making them aware of it.
I once had an issue with a spec from AFA Minerva not allowing for enough detection on a single loop android serving 5 floors. They didn't allow for detection within the ceiling where the camera power supplies were housed and touching some kind of cork insulation, and where the bare pyro was making contact with the old burgess ceiling grid that could cause potential earth loops. Suprisingly, they agreed with me, and said it was due to the spec provided by the council much to their disagreement.
They just said continue with it and they would sort out the certification. Which were just as well as if I had of issued one with the amount of departures, it would have pulled up at some point by an official especially with it being a new job. Anyway the earth loops were apparent after they spent nearly a week trying to stop the faults appearing, and the fire prevention officer wasn't happy about the lack of coverage and the amount of sounders. And the client which was Wakefield Council (West Yorkshire Police), demanded it be sorted before payment was made.
AFA Minerva argued the point and told them their spec was not up to standard, and should consider either consulting with fire alarm companies, or employ someone who knows about fire risk assessment and fire alarms. The council ended up paying for the job to be brought up to standard and covered pyro to be used to eliminate the earth loops, and bared back where it was run down to the call points.
Digressing from the thread.
I know what your saying my learned friend, and I can understand why you and most other folk wouldn't get involved with fire risk assessment. But beleive me its not all smoke and mirrors if you pardon the pun, most of it is just common sense. And seeking information where its not readily available such as incipid stage, flash ignition temperatures, fire spread and passage, and other data associated with fire and combustion products.
I always conduct my own risk assessments when designing fire alarms where there is no other information known or available, and I make the person ordering the work aware that a charge will be made to visit the site, and a risk asessment will be provided in writing signed by me, along with a quote. After all if I didn't, I wouldn't know the choice of detection to select, or the class of system in general, and I certainly wouldn't use the services of any one else to carry it out, as they may overlook essential data.
In the case of a design from external consultancy based on a given risk assessment from these "professionals". I will always raise any questions or comments that I am concerned with where I feel an over sight may exist, as I do feel that they don't visit sites enough and only send out a questionaire to the person organising the work. And when they do visit sites, for them to miss a storage cupboard with combustable products stored within it and bearing the COSH and flammable liquid signs on the door. Or where the amount of detection doesn't suffice the minimum amount offered by BS 5839, or where an underdrawing/crawl space, or above a suspended ceiling, the space volume and type of contsruction qualifies for detection.
So as you can imagine, I will always enquire as to why detection or audible and visual indication hasn't been considered in these cases, or an increase in protection in the adjacent corridor or room in the case of storage. And I always note it on the installation and commisioning cert as a departure, whether they like it or not.
In the case of the council, yes they do usaully refer to some doc for design that isn't readily available to the public. But I will always question and or make them aware of fire risks or design departures that I feel they may have overlooked. And they never do like it when they see a departure on one or more certs, despite making them aware of it.
I once had an issue with a spec from AFA Minerva not allowing for enough detection on a single loop android serving 5 floors. They didn't allow for detection within the ceiling where the camera power supplies were housed and touching some kind of cork insulation, and where the bare pyro was making contact with the old burgess ceiling grid that could cause potential earth loops. Suprisingly, they agreed with me, and said it was due to the spec provided by the council much to their disagreement.
They just said continue with it and they would sort out the certification. Which were just as well as if I had of issued one with the amount of departures, it would have pulled up at some point by an official especially with it being a new job. Anyway the earth loops were apparent after they spent nearly a week trying to stop the faults appearing, and the fire prevention officer wasn't happy about the lack of coverage and the amount of sounders. And the client which was Wakefield Council (West Yorkshire Police), demanded it be sorted before payment was made.
AFA Minerva argued the point and told them their spec was not up to standard, and should consider either consulting with fire alarm companies, or employ someone who knows about fire risk assessment and fire alarms. The council ended up paying for the job to be brought up to standard and covered pyro to be used to eliminate the earth loops, and bared back where it was run down to the call points.
