|
|
Post by Keith Rhodes on Oct 31, 2014 10:50:46 GMT
RSA position is this;
Where a building is required to have sprinklers -E.G. flats over 30m high this is not a compensatory measure
Where sprinklers are required to "compensate" for lack of full compliance with ADB - E.G. ADB 2.20.b (loft conversions) this is a compensatory measure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Keith Rhodes on Oct 31, 2014 11:02:24 GMT
To discuss - if 45m rule ADB 5 means that sprinklers are a compensatory measure for lack off appliance access or an alternative solution.
ADB 5 does not propose suppression as an alternative or solution to overcome the 45m rule.
Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that an AHJ might accept suppression as a compensatory measure.
ADB gives guidance on alternative approaches in 0.21
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Bedford on Feb 13, 2015 9:27:55 GMT
Hi Keith
Just looking at 2.20.b
I would argue that as the "open plan" Sprinkler solution is mentioned under this clause it cannot be viewed as compensatory. ADB describes it as an "alternative".
However
9251:2014 4.4
This does class a loft conversion sprinkler route as compensatory but it does not specifically mention overcoming "open plan".
So do we conclude that open plan @ GF using Sprinklers is NON compensatory, but if Sprinklers are installed anywhere else to overcome escape issues they do become compensatory?
|
|
|
|
Post by Keith Rhodes on Apr 15, 2015 14:53:24 GMT
Hi Mark
sorry i missed your post from Feb.
yes i do see your point on ADB 2.20b and if it were not for BS9251:2014 stating that in loft conversions a practical means of escape is not possible (I.E. AN ENCLOSED STAIRWELL) then sprinklers are a compensatory measure then i would concur that it might be classified as an alternative not a compensatory measure.
so whoever listed lofts in the Bs has contradicted ADB but we have to use the BS ruling (in my view anyway).
|
|
