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 2087 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

    mapj1:



    To most people that would be interpreted as a 100% failure rate




    Unfortunately I have to agree with you there. I am not 'most people' but I agree there was no fire in any of the cases. However there is no improvement in the technology that will stop this sort of failure - perhaps issuing fines to people who are idiotic enough to ignore the instructions to close the bathroom door, etc. would work, but that is not technology improvement. As you say, making the sensor less sensitive could make a difference but at the moment you can't guarantee a fire will be detected so reducing the chance of detecting a fire would not be an acceptable option. There was a hotel fire about six weeks ago that caused chaos in the M4/M5 interchange area (Premier Inn at Cribb's Causeway) where the hotel was a total loss (and in fact collapsed into the road, which is what caused the chaos) but there were no casualties. If you ask any of those who were in the hotel at the time if they would accept a reduction in the sensitivity of the detectors I am willing to put money on what the answer would be.

    Alasdair

Reply
  • 0

    mapj1:



    To most people that would be interpreted as a 100% failure rate




    Unfortunately I have to agree with you there. I am not 'most people' but I agree there was no fire in any of the cases. However there is no improvement in the technology that will stop this sort of failure - perhaps issuing fines to people who are idiotic enough to ignore the instructions to close the bathroom door, etc. would work, but that is not technology improvement. As you say, making the sensor less sensitive could make a difference but at the moment you can't guarantee a fire will be detected so reducing the chance of detecting a fire would not be an acceptable option. There was a hotel fire about six weeks ago that caused chaos in the M4/M5 interchange area (Premier Inn at Cribb's Causeway) where the hotel was a total loss (and in fact collapsed into the road, which is what caused the chaos) but there were no casualties. If you ask any of those who were in the hotel at the time if they would accept a reduction in the sensitivity of the detectors I am willing to put money on what the answer would be.

    Alasdair

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines