Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Using BS9999 as a Basis for Part B Compliance

  • 05-10-2016 09:04AM
    #1
    Tim76
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 946 ✭✭✭


    Hi all,

    Just wondering if anyone out there has used BS9999 as a basis for compliance with Part B and achieving an FSC for the building?

    The fire officer is open to accepting it but he wants BS9999 to be applied to the the whole facility and not just cherry picked for the parts that suit best, i.e. increased TDs with the use of sprinklers etc.

    All my previous compliance reports have based on the Part B/BS5588 format so while I'm familiar with parts of BS9999 I have no experience in using it for an actual application :confused:


Comments

  • #2
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    My understanding is that its BS9999 alone or else revert back to the TGDB/5588.
    The Fire Prevention Officer is correct in not allowing you to pick and mix.

    Dublin Airport for example would be completely BS9999, as there are no prescriptive guidance for buildings of that nature/size/use.


  • #3
    Tim76
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Tim76


    The building I'm looking at is an extension to an existing facility.

    The existing & proposed buildings certainly wouldn't be the on the scale of Dublin Airport but the nature & size now involved means that the development has gone beyond the guidance as set out in Part B / BS5588 series.

    Do you know if the whole of Dublin Airport now complies with BS9999 or is it just Terminal 2?


  • #4
    civdef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭civdef


    Just also beware that BS9999 doesn't necessarily meet all of the requirements of the Building Regulations (especially B2-B5). Unlike TGD-B, it doesn't indicate prima facie compliance with the regulations.

    Personally I don't have much time for BS9999. I'd much rather see a TGD-B based solution, with fire engineering as necessary. This is what's generally used for the biggest buildings in the country.

    I'd be shocked frankly if BS9999 was used for Dublin Airport - to the best of my knowledge it was fire engineered:

    http://www.sfpe.org/?page=2013_Q1_1

    http://www.msa.ie/projects/Transport-Dubin-Airport-Pier-D-Terminal_22.html


  • #5
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    civdef wrote: »
    Just also beware that BS9999 doesn't necessarily meet all of the requirements of the Building Regulations (especially B2-B5). Unlike TGD-B, it doesn't indicate prima facie compliance with the regulations.

    Personally I don't have much time for BS9999. I'd much rather see a TGD-B based solution, with fire engineering as necessary. This is what's generally used for the biggest buildings in the country.

    I'd be shocked frankly if BS9999 was used for Dublin Airport - to the best of my knowledge it was fire engineered:

    http://www.sfpe.org/?page=2013_Q1_1

    http://www.msa.ie/projects/Transport-Dubin-Airport-Pier-D-Terminal_22.html

    Maybe my understanding of Dublin Airport was misunderstood (on my behalf), but I knew it was a Fire Engineered approach, I just assumed it was to BS9999 standard. I knew they controlled the Fire Loads in particular locations in order to keep control of any possible fires that may start in the large open volumes.

    I done my Post Grad with one of the lads from DAA and he was explaining it one of the evenings.

    IIRC, John Noone of ARUP was the Fire Safety Consultant/Engineer.

    Edit - Just read the links, yes John Noone & William Ward, both of which are Lectures in TCD School of Engineering (they both lectured me). John Noone is over here on 19th October to give a talk at the Institute of Fire Engineers conference.


  • #6
    civdef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭civdef


    This is my main issue with BS9999, it's a big complex document, but it's still a prescriptive code, and when it comes to something big, it's likely to not provide the necessary flexibility for non-standard situations.

    In many situations, it'll also provide a more onerous solution for designers, e.g. it'll look for sprinklers in some situations where other codes don't, and where fire engineering would say it wasn't required.

    BS9999 has had a very poor take up generally in Ireland, the serious fire safety consultants aren't using it generally, and when less experienced people try it, they usually make a bollix of it.

    Where you need design flexibility, the principles of BS7974 are where you need to be looking, but it also takes a lot of underpinning knowledge / experience to use it. A lot of the stuff in BS9999 originates from BS7974 (e.g. occupancy types, justification for longer travel distances for higher ceilings etc etc).


  • Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement