Fire Suppesstion System
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Student
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:30 pm
- 13
Fire Suppesstion System
H All
We have a fire suppresstion system fitted within a randex storage unit in our dispatch area. My question is does this sytem need to be connected to our main fire detection triggering a whole site evacuation in the event it was activated .We have a suppression system in our server room which is not connected. Any advice would be great .
We have a fire suppresstion system fitted within a randex storage unit in our dispatch area. My question is does this sytem need to be connected to our main fire detection triggering a whole site evacuation in the event it was activated .We have a suppression system in our server room which is not connected. Any advice would be great .
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
My advice would be to seek the advice of a specialist on fire suppression systems and for them to liase closely with the person that draws up your FRA to determine what does and does not need to happen in the event of a fire alarm.
Too many questions and possible answers to be of any help on a forum.
Too many questions and possible answers to be of any help on a forum.
Education is the key. A manager should always stand by their team. They employed them.
- Elf&Safety
- Jnr Member
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:11 pm
- 9
- Industry Sector: Micro-Electronics Manufacture
- Occupation: Health, Safety and Environmental Officer
- Location: England
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
What i would do personally is put extra detectors in the area, that way it is in essence connected. If the fire isn't contained sufficiently or if smoke escapes it would trigger normal procedures. In theory the system should completely stop the fire and that should be it. However, you've clearly decided these machines are at risk of fire hence the system installed, standard smoke detectors or if space and design allows infra-red in the ceiling space should give you more confidence.
My previous fire supression systems were never connected to the main system however our system was top notch and would detect if it hadn't been controlled sufficiently or if too much powder escaped etc (maybe door on machine was open at the time etc... ) Do you have a powder system btw?
My previous fire supression systems were never connected to the main system however our system was top notch and would detect if it hadn't been controlled sufficiently or if too much powder escaped etc (maybe door on machine was open at the time etc... ) Do you have a powder system btw?
- Messy
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 3585
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am
- 17
- Occupation: 46 years experience with a metropolitan Fire Brigade and then Fire Safety Manager for a global brand.
Now sort of retired from the fire safety game, but doing the odd job here and there to keep my grey matter working and as I hate sudoku and havent got the back for an allotment - Location: Sunny London where the streets are paved with gold ;)
- Has thanked: 363 times
- Been thanked: 660 times
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
My question would be if the fire suppression system has operated, why on earth would you not want it linked to the fire detection system? There's a fire for goodness sake!!
Most are suppression systems operated by heat or manual operation, so unwanted fire signals are unlikely. Sprinkler systems should be connected via a short delay as pressure differentials can cause problems in flow switches and lead to false activations, but other systems can be linked easily
Seriously, why would you not link it - especially a server room?
Most are suppression systems operated by heat or manual operation, so unwanted fire signals are unlikely. Sprinkler systems should be connected via a short delay as pressure differentials can cause problems in flow switches and lead to false activations, but other systems can be linked easily
Seriously, why would you not link it - especially a server room?
-
- Student
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:30 pm
- 13
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
Thanks All
I will take on your comments, and will discuss them with our faciltites department as i cant get an answer as to why they have not connected up the server room before now
I will take on your comments, and will discuss them with our faciltites department as i cant get an answer as to why they have not connected up the server room before now
- Messy
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 3585
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am
- 17
- Occupation: 46 years experience with a metropolitan Fire Brigade and then Fire Safety Manager for a global brand.
Now sort of retired from the fire safety game, but doing the odd job here and there to keep my grey matter working and as I hate sudoku and havent got the back for an allotment - Location: Sunny London where the streets are paved with gold ;)
- Has thanked: 363 times
- Been thanked: 660 times
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
diamondno1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:30 pm Thanks All
I will take on your comments, and will discuss them with our faciltites department as i cant get an answer as to why they have not connected up the server room before now
I would be interested in their rationale in not connecting these system to the fire alarm once you are aware- AND as long as you won't be betraying any commercial or contractural confidences by doing so of course!
- Elf&Safety
- Jnr Member
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:11 pm
- 9
- Industry Sector: Micro-Electronics Manufacture
- Occupation: Health, Safety and Environmental Officer
- Location: England
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
Our system for the server room was completely self contained and in theory the building didn't need to be evacuated as the risk of fire spread was supposed to be non existant due to the system. It was a sealed room and once the powder is used the fire can't continue... so where is the need to evacuate people? If there is your normal system should be able to detect it. We had an extra fire detector outside the room, if any particles or smoke escaped the alarm would be triggered.... i wouldn't say there is a need for it to be connected but i supposed it's dependant on design of the building and the system.
Think some people are missing the point.... once the system is activated; there is no fire!!
Think some people are missing the point.... once the system is activated; there is no fire!!
- witsd
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:37 pm
- 9
- Occupation: Fire safety officer
- Location: Glasgow
- Has thanked: 90 times
- Been thanked: 264 times
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
I hadn't realised that fire suppression systems were infallible...
We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because 'two' is 'one and one.' We forget that we still have to make a study of 'and.'
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
And the earlier question regarding is the suppression system powder based is relevant too. If powder suppression is used, even if it puts out the fire I would be evacuating until the air is clear of the nasty powder particles. That would clear the area nearly as well as smoke from a fire...
- Messy
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 3585
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am
- 17
- Occupation: 46 years experience with a metropolitan Fire Brigade and then Fire Safety Manager for a global brand.
Now sort of retired from the fire safety game, but doing the odd job here and there to keep my grey matter working and as I hate sudoku and havent got the back for an allotment - Location: Sunny London where the streets are paved with gold ;)
- Has thanked: 363 times
- Been thanked: 660 times
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
Once upon a time, BS5839 was pretty relaxed and allowed detection in corridors and escape routes only to achieve a Cat 3 system.
Then, after some research, boffins concluded that as the alarm would only be sounded when the escape route was actually affected by smoke, this could in certain cases be too late to provide an effective available safe egress time (ASET). In short, in some cases, by the time punters reached their escape route, it was too late and they were trapped.
So The British Standard Institute changed their category L3 standard (BS5839-1) to include; ' escape routes and rooms leading on to escape routes'.
Now a fire would be detected earlier - in the room and alarm sounded immediately and crucially, whilst the corridor and stairs were still clear and available.
Now this server room:
1) The risk of fire has been assessed and the findings dictate it requiring an expensive suppression system. Now look again, its described for fire 'suppression'. I do not know of a system that will give a 100% cast iron guarantee that it will extinguisher a fire. Even huge sprinkler systems with unlimited water supplies are designed to hold/contain and suppress fires. By and large, they will extinguish the fire - but not always. If a fire safety engineer promises full extinguishment - sack him/her as they are telling porkies
2) Nearly all suppression systems work on heat activation &/or double knock smoke/simultaneous system where 2 x smoke detectors need to activate before firing the suppression system. We have a water mist system where 3 x heads (2 x smoke and 1 x heat) are required before water flows. So false alarms are rare and the fire will be well involved before anyone knows of it
3) Someone needs to be aware that the system has activated, so linking it to the buildings AFD system seem sensible. How else would you know the system has operated?
4) Of course the FRA will determine fire detection solutions, but I find it difficult to imagine that where any detection is fitted, it will not include a server room. Even in a cat M system (manual call points only), a local detection system could be fitted to the server room to make this a L5/M system
I do not subscribe that any server room is totally 'sealed' or any suppression system is totally reliable. I have worked on very large data hall projects and if such systems were on the market, we would have used them!
I am not saying its impossible for a server room to be fitted with a suppression system and no AFD, but I simply cannot understand the rationale that would allow this mis match of a fire safety strategy. But I am big enough and ugly enough to learn and be put right, so please help me understand the justification !!!
Then, after some research, boffins concluded that as the alarm would only be sounded when the escape route was actually affected by smoke, this could in certain cases be too late to provide an effective available safe egress time (ASET). In short, in some cases, by the time punters reached their escape route, it was too late and they were trapped.
So The British Standard Institute changed their category L3 standard (BS5839-1) to include; ' escape routes and rooms leading on to escape routes'.
Now a fire would be detected earlier - in the room and alarm sounded immediately and crucially, whilst the corridor and stairs were still clear and available.
Now this server room:
1) The risk of fire has been assessed and the findings dictate it requiring an expensive suppression system. Now look again, its described for fire 'suppression'. I do not know of a system that will give a 100% cast iron guarantee that it will extinguisher a fire. Even huge sprinkler systems with unlimited water supplies are designed to hold/contain and suppress fires. By and large, they will extinguish the fire - but not always. If a fire safety engineer promises full extinguishment - sack him/her as they are telling porkies
2) Nearly all suppression systems work on heat activation &/or double knock smoke/simultaneous system where 2 x smoke detectors need to activate before firing the suppression system. We have a water mist system where 3 x heads (2 x smoke and 1 x heat) are required before water flows. So false alarms are rare and the fire will be well involved before anyone knows of it
3) Someone needs to be aware that the system has activated, so linking it to the buildings AFD system seem sensible. How else would you know the system has operated?
4) Of course the FRA will determine fire detection solutions, but I find it difficult to imagine that where any detection is fitted, it will not include a server room. Even in a cat M system (manual call points only), a local detection system could be fitted to the server room to make this a L5/M system
I do not subscribe that any server room is totally 'sealed' or any suppression system is totally reliable. I have worked on very large data hall projects and if such systems were on the market, we would have used them!
I am not saying its impossible for a server room to be fitted with a suppression system and no AFD, but I simply cannot understand the rationale that would allow this mis match of a fire safety strategy. But I am big enough and ugly enough to learn and be put right, so please help me understand the justification !!!
- witsd
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:37 pm
- 9
- Occupation: Fire safety officer
- Location: Glasgow
- Has thanked: 90 times
- Been thanked: 264 times
Re: Fire Suppesstion System
Just to follow on from Messy's post, a suppressed fire may still be a fire:
We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because 'two' is 'one and one.' We forget that we still have to make a study of 'and.'
- Messy
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 3585
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am
- 17
- Occupation: 46 years experience with a metropolitan Fire Brigade and then Fire Safety Manager for a global brand.
Now sort of retired from the fire safety game, but doing the odd job here and there to keep my grey matter working and as I hate sudoku and havent got the back for an allotment - Location: Sunny London where the streets are paved with gold ;)
- Has thanked: 363 times
- Been thanked: 660 times