Code of Practice for Fire Safety in Buildings 2011
Clause C9.1 All liftwells should comply with the following requirements: (d) where a lift connects basement with storeys above the ground storey, the lift doors at the basement should be protected by a smoke seal lobby complying with Part E. APSEC Discussion Forum on 18 October 2013 The BD confirmed that the smoke seal lobby concerned did not require to have any specific FRR. However, its construction should be able to perform its function as a smoke seal lobby under the relevant criteria of the testing standard. In addition, if the subject lift was a fireman’s lift, the lobby and lobby doors should have the required FRR in accordance with Clause D11.1 of the FS Code. APSEC Discussion Forum on 9 January 2015 The BD advised that a smoke sealed lobby was not required at the basement floors if the panorama lift would only serve the basement floors and those above-ground storeys as all these floors had been designed as one single fire compartment complying with FS Code Clause C14.1. However, a smoke sealed lobby would be required if there would be another lift serving this compartment and other storeys above these compartment. APSEC Discussion Forum on 17 March 2017 BD confirmed that smoke seal requirements in the FS Code did not apply to lift landing doors. The requirement in Clause C9.1(d) was generally applicable to vehicle lifts. However, if every element of construction and fire barriers of the floors of the same use classification connected by the vehicle lift starting from basement floor had an FRR of not less than that of the basement as specified in Clause C14.1, provision of smoke seal lobby as required in Clause C9.1(d) would not be necessary.
0 評論
Having happen that a change in the responsible BS on a project often would lead to changes in the interpretation of regulations, even when plans have been approved and amendments do not involve the items concerned. If happen ! What things you can do !
According to APSEC Discussion Forum on 18 May 2012 BD advised that APs could request the next higher level officer for a review if they thought there was a change to previous interpretations, i.e. review by SBS if BS’s interpretations were changed, review by CBS if SBS’s interpretations were changed, etc. [Post-meeting note : BD has reminded its staff to seek CBS’s endorsement if there is a need to request AP to amend plans showing building works which had already been approved previously.] But is it really ! If you do that ! Do you fear retribution ! Barrier Free Access 2008 B. Recommended Design Requirements (d) Tactile warning strips at the head, foot and landing should have a minimum luminous contrast of 70% with the adjoining surfaces. Is it need to put a tactile warning strips at the foot of disabled ramp outside the B.L. ? Some BS need to fulfill this disabled ramp requirement according to Barrier Free Access 2008 !
Anyone heard that need to demonstrate MOE in a construction site of A & A works . Because it is an A & A works construction site not a new building. This requirement is asked by BD 's Senior BS ! Is it crazy !
APSEC Discussion Forum on 18 May 2012
BD advised that during the drafting of the FS Code, the 15m high restriction was mainly intended for application in indoor commercial atriums. Since the designs and layouts of buildings varied, it would be impractical to give a definition on “atrium”. Openings at floors for passage of staircase(s) and/or escalator(s) would not be taken as an atrium under Clause C10.3, unless the openings were much larger than the plan area of the staircase(s) or escalator(s) in which case they might be regarded as an atrium. APSEC 2016-01-15
The purpose of the “wall” mentioned in Clause C13.4(d) of the current FS Code was to shield the evacuees from radiant heat of stove fires, allowing the necessary pause of evacuees to open the door (and gate) without being seriously charred. This wall would be essential unless the stove was placed sufficiently far from the exit. From the advice of the Technical Committee on the various open kitchen layouts presented and an expert’s advice on the effect of radiant heat flux to the evacuees at the exit door, the minimum distance for a sprinkler controlled household stove fire without shielding by walls should be 2m measured from the nearest corner of the stove to the door knob when the exit door was in closed position. APSEC 2016-04-27 Open kitchen near toilet In the absence of scientific reference on the safe distance between a toilet opening and an open kitchen, reference was made to a compliant situation in that a toilet door was open into an internal corridor and right on the opposite side of the corridor was an opened kitchen door. Taking a clear distance of 850mm working space in front of the cooking bench and a minimum corridor width of 850mm separating the toilet and kitchen in the usually encountered layouts, the toilet door opening should therefore be at least 1700mm from the edge of the kitchen bench. APs should note the importance of adequate mechanical ventilation to internal bathrooms where they were close to open kitchens. [Post meeting note: taking a pragmatic approach, for situations with L-shaped bench layouts and a minimum 850mm working space was allowed forming the notional kitchen area, a clear distance of 850mm between the notional kitchen area and the toilet door opening might be acceptable.] The width of last door to external is count as 'Exit Route Width', not 'Exit Door Width' from the COP , the original rationale behind this, from Fire escape safety of view alone , BD does not expect there is a door at the last door at the last exit point reducing the overall exit route width and forming a bottle neck.
However, since for security reason , a door in general is necessary for normal operation security reason , therefore the common practice adopt is , having the last end of the exit corridor slightly wider to absorb the door frame thickness. Unless there are further evolution to this interpretation , otherwise, the above is common practice as a resultant understanding from BD officers in general, B5.2 and Table B2 ,note 2-4. IS IT CRAZY ! THIS INTERPRETATION IS TO FEEL HOPELESSLY WORRIED OR GET IN TROUBLE FOR IMAGINARY FEARS AND BLOW APART HAIRS UPON A FUR TO DISCOVER ANY DEFECT. 正宗阿茂整餅 ! APSEC Discussion Forum on 28 August 2015
The BD pointed out that the EV charging enabling facilities should be provided to all parking spaces of motor vehicles, i.e. private car, motor cycle, and lorry parking only. As drop-off areas, lay-bys and loading / unloading bays for motor vehicles should not be regarded as car parking spaces, there was no need to provide EV charging enabling facilities at these locations. Besides, bicycles should not be considered as motor vehicles and parking spaces of bicycles should not be required to provide EV charging enabling facilities. |
築繪Blocks and Lisp help us to drawing fast and spend not too much time in the repeat and dull cad drafting works ! I try to gather this useful tools to share for us ! But I also need all of us to help me to finish this task.. |