Fire Station burns down

Putting sprinklers in buildings isn't always the done thing and is down to cost and complexity, even in this day and age. Sometimes the client will take the risk and it will be his or his insurer's decision. If they don't it probably means there is ample escape routes and the owner is happy for property to burn or wait for the fire service to come. This process can also sometimes include the local fire service's recommendations.

I've designed a couple of school buildings last few years. One had it; the other didn't.
 
DB_SamX said:
Putting sprinklers in buildings isn't always the done thing and is down to cost and complexity, even in this day and age. Sometimes the client will take the risk and it will be his or his insurer's decision. If they don't it probably means there is ample escape routes and the owner is happy for property to burn or wait for the fire service to come. This process can also sometimes include the local fire service's recommendations.

I've designed a couple of school buildings last few years. One had it; the other didn't.
Click to expand...

I imagine there's also the risk of them going off in error and causing a lot of water damage which needs to be taken into account?
 
Oh dear.. quite ironic!

Haggisman said:
I imagine there's also the risk of them going off in error and causing a lot of water damage which needs to be taken into account?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that must happen very rarely. The sprinklers are activate by very high heat and individually, not all at once.
 
Last edited:
Spursingham said:
I'm happy nobody's life was extinguished.
Click to expand...

Oh no you didnt!!! :p

index.php
 
Haggisman said:
I imagine there's also the risk of them going off in error and causing a lot of water damage which needs to be taken into account?
Click to expand...

Which is probably one of the reasons we don't tend to get them in normal housing to be honest* (I've got a feeling they need regular maintinance and inspections to make sure they function correctly).

I suspect the fire station staff may well be looking very red faced today, or at least the management who presumably would have been the ones making the decisions about the safety systems.
Although having said that, given it looks to be basically a garage only rather than manned station the H&S requirements and costs of an alarm etc may not have seemed justified to someone (who will probably be writing out "I will specify a fire alarm in all fire service buildings in future" a few thousand times).





*The other, probably bigger reason is that if you can't persuade house builders to put in double sockets as standard (as opposed to an optional extra at well above cost difference), the chances of getting them to put in something that actually requires more work and expensive is tiny.
 
dowie said:
Investigators have found the cause of the blaze; someone left the Irony on...
Click to expand...

LOL :D

It's a bit ridiculous that the bulk of the defence is in the fact that there were no sprinklers. Surely prevention is much better than cure.

Surely checks should have been made to ensure that the fire didn't start in the first place rather than arguing there should be sprinklers.

Presumely the building planners felt that since it's a firestation with 24 hour crew. They could do a better job of putting out fires than sprinklers.
 
You also need to provide a tank preferably to store all that water. The bigger the building, the bigger the tank. And if it's not on the roof, it has to be elsewhere which implies pumping required. So yeah, lots of effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom