Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

AOV Shafts

  • 02-04-2009 9:14am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,556 ✭✭✭✭


    I was on site yesterday carrying out a third party inspection of a rather complex apartment development which is built & occupied nearly 4 years now for the preparation of a schedule of works for maintenance predominantly in terms of fire safety. Anyway i was checking the AOV shafts at each floor level (no windows in the corridors to provides them) to see the shafts themselves were clear of obstruction etc only to see services (electrical cables/drainage pipes etc) running along the walls of the shaft, whereas the sq/m required for the AOV was still easily fulfilled despite these services i was a bit taken aback by the fact the shaft was doubling up with these services at all, obviously to change this would be a rather big deal so i was just wondering has anyone else come across a similar situation and if do if it was considered acceptable? I havent checked through Part B or BS5588 yet but assume this is unacceptable to have services in a shaft designed to allow smoke escape from an enclosed corridor?
    "I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens




Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 272 ✭✭von Neumann


    From what I can tell there shouldn't be an issue.
    Assuming,
    i) Aerodynamic free area is maintained.
    ii) Services do not breach a fire zone.
    iii) Shaft is not being used as a fresh air supply.......nothing would suprise me :o.

    I'd be interest in other more knowedgable peoples thoughts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,546 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    For me the problem her would be where the shaft and the services cross a compartment boundry. The services should be able to be closed off, pipes crushed, etc., can this be done if they are inside a smoke evac shaft?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 272 ✭✭von Neumann


    For me the problem her would be where the shaft and the services cross a compartment boundry. The services should be able to be closed off, pipes crushed, etc., can this be done if they are inside a smoke evac shaft?

    I've seen this done with a gas main of all things.
    But that was a mechanical smoke extract system and they had fire stops around the pipe at the boundary.
    The words playing with fire come to mind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,556 ✭✭✭✭DvB


    For me the problem her would be where the shaft and the services cross a compartment boundry. The services should be able to be closed off, pipes crushed, etc., can this be done if they are inside a smoke evac shaft?

    To be fair the shaft itself was constructed of 200 insitu concrete all round (with the exception of the opes at each floor level obviously) and all the services where passing through compartment walls were fitted with the correct fire seals etc.
    We have consulted with a recently retired fire officer though & he said theres no regulation against it so i suppose there's nothing here but to make sure the current arrangement is maintained correctly. Still think its a poor design though.
    "I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens




Advertisement