Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 29 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2074 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Cables and reaction to fire

lyledunn
Why do you suppose that the MHCLG did not feel it necessary to mandate levels of performance for cables with respect to their reaction to fire as was their prerogative under CPR?

Clearly the current non-prescriptive approach is either working or there is no significant evidence that cables and wiring systems have unduly contributed to the propagation of a fire or resulted in emissions that made a situation untenable when it would not have otherwise been. 

Further, what does it actually mean in the note in 422.2.1 that cables need to satisfy the requirements of the CPR in terms of their reaction to fire? I can find nothing specific in the CPR other than the need for CE marking and the requirements placed on the manufacturers for technical information.
Parents
  • 0


    Not sure what you mean by 7671 requiring risk assessment OMS, but I do understand the imperatives for designers selecting cables with better performance in fire. However, imperatives should be evidence-based and I can find nothing in the way of forensic reports detailing the contribution cabling made in real fire situations. For example, it would seem reasonable that cables with improved fire performance are installed say in a hotel situation but, equally, not unreasonable that they are not. Some designers, on the other hand, will  opt for the former under the pressure of perceived imperatives. In other words, if the designer specifies LSF cable for the bedrooms, for example, they might assume that risk has been reduced from what it otherwise would have been had standard twin and earth cables been used. Since bunching would be unlikely in the voids above bedrooms, fire safety may not have been improved one jot but it just seems that by specifying LSF the right thing has been done irrespective of cost to the client. 

    Dont get me wrong, I am an advocate of  meticulous consideration of fire safety measures for buildings but I just get the impression that we are responding in an almost knee-jerk fashion due to rightful focus on recent tragic fires.

Reply
  • 0


    Not sure what you mean by 7671 requiring risk assessment OMS, but I do understand the imperatives for designers selecting cables with better performance in fire. However, imperatives should be evidence-based and I can find nothing in the way of forensic reports detailing the contribution cabling made in real fire situations. For example, it would seem reasonable that cables with improved fire performance are installed say in a hotel situation but, equally, not unreasonable that they are not. Some designers, on the other hand, will  opt for the former under the pressure of perceived imperatives. In other words, if the designer specifies LSF cable for the bedrooms, for example, they might assume that risk has been reduced from what it otherwise would have been had standard twin and earth cables been used. Since bunching would be unlikely in the voids above bedrooms, fire safety may not have been improved one jot but it just seems that by specifying LSF the right thing has been done irrespective of cost to the client. 

    Dont get me wrong, I am an advocate of  meticulous consideration of fire safety measures for buildings but I just get the impression that we are responding in an almost knee-jerk fashion due to rightful focus on recent tragic fires.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines