10/3/2014 'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke shafts v pressurisation' | Means of Escape - Fire Safety Magazine

http://www.means-of-escape.com/content/protecting-escape-routes-smoke-shafts-v-pressurisation 1/6
Fire Safety
& News
Tweet 0 0 Like 0
'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke
shafts v pressurisation'
Pressurisation is one of the possible solutions to provide smoke
ventilation in escape stairs, common lobbies and corridors in
residential buildings as required by Approved Document B and is
recommended for buildings taller than 30m (BS 9999 & BS 9991).
Mechanical ventilation is mentioned in ADB, but only with reference to pressurisation. Nevertheless it has
become commonly used as an alternative to natural smoke shafts, providing equivalent or improved
performance.
How do you decide which to use? The decision is influenced by legislation and standards, building
configuration, budget and space requirements. There is no universal right choice, but theres certainly a
best choice for each individual building.
1) Have you a view on dilution systems with push-pull fans and ducts?
We very often use push-pull systems in larger buildings. There is sometimes a query over the changes in
pressurisation or de-pressurisation as the conditions change; but generally they work very well. They will
generally clear a corridor of smoke within a couple of minutes from closing a door and they provide
generally the best protection.
They are the most expensive mechanical shaft type system but they will give you the best protection.
2) Do we have any difficulty with excessive door opening forces with pressurisation systems used
in conjunction with a storey smoke extraction system?
Its not common to have problems but if we have a storey smoke extract system then generally that system
will have its own source of air inlet, so that the extra de-pressurisation caused within the room will be
relatively small. If we know that there is a storey smoke extraction system installed then when we
commission the pressurisation system, we would expect that system to be running and we would check
the pressure differential is no more than 55 Pa when both systems are running together.
So, no its not a problem but we do need to know the systems are there so that we can make sure they are
working in right condition.
3) Typically where does the air release get installed and what form does it take?
Generally if air release is possible through the perimeter of the building using automatically operated
Search Means of Escape
Share
Fire Safety News Events & Associations News Products & Services Fire Training Guides
10/3/2014 'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke shafts v pressurisation' | Means of Escape - Fire Safety Magazine
http://www.means-of-escape.com/content/protecting-escape-routes-smoke-shafts-v-pressurisation 2/6
ventilators or windows then that is by far the best system. It doesnt take any space and is relatively easy
to install, and is easy to service and maintain in the future.
Where you cant do that then you would use a shaft system. This is normally because a building is cellular.
If its all open-plan then youve always got direct access from your pressurised spaces straight through to a
window. If you havent got that due to corridors and cellular offices, then a shaft system from the space
adjacent to the stair is the best solution. You have a free choice as to whether thats mechanical or natural
and it comes down to whether you want to pay the extra money for the fans or keep as cheap as possible
and use a larger natural shaft.
4) There is a request for a reminder of the website for the free download of the Smoke Control
Association guidance.
Thats www.feta.co.uk
5) What is the maximum length of a corridor for which you can use smoke shafts and are there any
requirements on shaft locations?
If you are complying with Building Regulations in terms of the building layout then there is no particular
requirement for the shaft location. It could be anywhere adjoining the lobby which is adjoining the stair.
If you have extended corridors then yes, there are requirements. In terms of the maximum corridor length,
we can make the system work with any corridor length but what is more important is what sort of length
are building control likely to accept as a single direction of travel with no fire doors etc in the way.
Generally the guidance is that the absolute maximum that youre likely to get approved is probably 30m.
But generally people are comfortable with less than that. The majority of systems we see tend to be in the
range of 18-25m. If you are going for that sort of system, it is very important that the inlet and the exhaust
are separated as far as they possibly can be. So ideally you would have your inlet right at one end of the
corridor and your extract right at the other end. In practice, that is not always practically possible but they
do need to be as close to the ends of the corridors as they can be.
6) What is the current situation of BSEN 12101 part 6?
BSEN 12101 part 6 is the pressurisation standard. The standard is current within all of Europe. It actually
requires CE marking of pressurisation systems on-site, but the way the standard is written its impossible
to do that. So pressurisation systems at the moment are not CE-marked.
There is an issue there that is being addressed and the CEN Committee responsible for BSEN 12101 part
6 is currently re-writing it, with the intent of splitting the CE-marking requirements from the design
requirements. Things will change but its probably 3-4 years before thats finished and published.
7) What is the maximum building height in which a mechanical shaft system would work?
In theory there is no particular maximum. It may be that if youve got a particularly tall building then you
may want to split it into 2-3 sections in terms of the mechanical system.
If you are doing a pressurisation system, then you may want to do exactly the same.
Where you are looking at natural shaft systems, BRE have proven them by CFD up to 100 storeys.
There is no reason why a mechanical system shouldnt also work up to 100 storeys. You will end up with a
larger shaft but practically, for 99% of buildings, there is no real limitation.
8) You mentioned you can use mechanical shafts for day-to-day ventilation; do you need separate
fans for smoke and day-to-day ventilation?
That depends; you can use a separate fan as we do in some cases. In other cases we use the smoke fan
but we must make sure they are attenuated and inverter driven to give us a generally lower flow rate and
much lower noise level as noise is much more critical for day-to-day usage than for smoke control use.
9) Natural shafts are only allowed in buildings of no more than 30m. Are there any circumstance
where this can be extended to a greater height?
That is the requirement in BS9991 and BS9999, if you are using those standards. If you are not using
those standards and are using BS5588 then there is no problem using natural shafts much beyond that.
If you are using BS9991 or BS9999 then its basically down to the designers and building control to decide
what is acceptable. Certainly, technically there is no reason why you shouldnt use natural shafts above
30m, its simply that the British Standard committee felt that pressurisation gives better protection and
therefore they wanted it in taller buildings.
THIS PAGE ISSAFE VAULT ISACCESSSITE ISINFOBAR
IGNOREDOPENCLOSEDVAULTHIDDEN
10/3/2014 'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke shafts v pressurisation' | Means of Escape - Fire Safety Magazine
http://www.means-of-escape.com/content/protecting-escape-routes-smoke-shafts-v-pressurisation 3/6
10) Can you comment on the suitability of a mechanical venting system in regard to protecting
refuges in protected common corridors and lobbies? Can the system ensure tenable conditions in
these spaces or is the design reliant on accommodating the refuge area within the stair?
If you are using a mechanical ventilation system then I would strongly recommend that the refuge should
be within the stair rather than within the lobby or corridor. Even if youve got an enhanced mechanical
system intended to clear the lobby very quickly or the corridor very quickly, the lobby or corridor will get
smoke into it every time the door from the fire room is opened and therefore there will be periods when it
will be relatively smoky. So if youve got a refuge and you want to use a mechanical shaft system then you
should put that refuge within the stair.
11) With a mechanical shaft system, what size ventilator is required from the lobby to the shaft and
at the top of the stair?
From the lobby into the shaft, the size will be fairly dependent on the choice of the type of ventilator you
use and the manufacturers guidance. Generally we would be looking at something with a face area in the
order of 0.6 or 0.8m2 for a Colt system. For the ventilator at the head of the stair, we would normally
recommend 1m2 free area in compliance with ADB so that if the mechanical system does fail youve still
got a compliant ventilator at the head of the stair. We dont actually need it to be quite that big when the
mechanical vent systems working but its just an extra safety feature.
12) Is it possible under the BSEN to look at lower over pressures based on the provision
sprinklers, similar to the approach taken by NFPA92?
There is no provision within EN12101-6 for lower pressures depending on whether you have sprinklers or
anything else. Its just a fixed rate and in that respect we do differ quite considerably from the American
approach. There is no reason why on an individual job you couldnt take a fire engineered approach and
by CFD or other methods get building control to accept a lower pressure as an acceptable design. But if
you do that you are not actually EN12101-6 compliant.
13) As I understand it, shaft systems are designed using a 2-2.5MW ultra fast design fire. Can you
please comment on the sensitivity to other design fire sizes, particularly in non-sprinklered
buildings where a larger fire is realistic?
Yes, in most cases people do design on fires up to 2.5MW. This generally applies to residential buildings
because we have relatively small compartments. This fire size can apply to sprinklered office
accommodation and may apply to cellular un-sprinkled office accommodation. Certainly if you have open-
plan office accommodation which is unsprinkled then we wouldnt design for a 2.5MW fire. In fact for the
Colt shaft system we have actually developed a version which is based upon on the 12MW fire which is
recommended in BR368. So yes, if you have unsprinklered open-plan then a 2.5MW fire is not enough.
14) Isnt it possible to get a reverse flow of ventilation in a natural shaft in cold climates?
Generally you shouldnt. The shaft itself normally has a ventilator at the top which is closed and therefore
its exposed to the outside for a very small area and its exposed to the interior through the shaft and
through the vents for quite a large area, so the shaft itself should not get anywhere near the cold external
air temperatures. Certainly, if its very cold outside when you start the system you will have a column of
what is probably cooler air than inside. But of course, youve also got the buoyancy of the heat from the
fire which will over come that.
15) Is there a maximum air velocity on smoke outlet openings in a smoke shaft system?
In a smoke shaft system there is no particular maximum air velocity. The shaft system itself is generally
sized to give a reasonable balance between saving space and not creating too much fan power. So you
tend to end up with a discharge velocity which is probably in the region of 5-10m per second. Thats the
norm but there is no particular reason why you cant go outside that if youve got a particular reason.
16) Can you comment on provision of the plant for a mechanical shaft at the base of the smoke
exhaust shaft rather than the head?
Thats perfectly possible to do. When we look at it, the fan itself will have quite a high ability to overcome
pressure losses and the buoyancy pressures of smoke are relatively low, at perhaps 10-20Pa. The fan is
probably rated at 300-400 Pa.
So, yes its perfectly possible to do a design with the fan at the bottom or middle of the shaft if you wanted
to. The only disadvantage there is that you are possibly discharging at ground level and you need to make
sure your discharge location wont affect people escaping from the building or lead to smoke being re-
circulated back into the building.

10/3/2014 'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke shafts v pressurisation' | Means of Escape - Fire Safety Magazine
http://www.means-of-escape.com/content/protecting-escape-routes-smoke-shafts-v-pressurisation 4/6
Published July 2014
WANT TO KNOW MORE
Want To Know More?
Please complete the form below. Mandatory fields marked *

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Submit
SEARCH RESULTS
'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke shafts v pressurisation'
... Pressurisation is one of the possible solutions to provide smoke ventilation in
escape stairs, common lobbies and corridors in residential buildings as ...
Name * Email *
Question *
Please tick if you do not wish to be contacted regarding relevant opportunities
Privacy & Terms
Type the text
Subscribe
MOE NEWSLETTERS
Place Enter your email
10/3/2014 'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke shafts v pressurisation' | Means of Escape - Fire Safety Magazine
http://www.means-of-escape.com/content/protecting-escape-routes-smoke-shafts-v-pressurisation 5/6
SPONSORS
Contact Us
Newsletter Signup
Send Feedback
Home
News & Events
Products & Services
Interactive Fire Guides
Members Section
Products
Fire Safety Audit Guide
Fire Safety & First Aider Waistcoats
Pocket Guides
Directory
Search By Categories
10/3/2014 'Protecting Escape routes: Smoke shafts v pressurisation' | Means of Escape - Fire Safety Magazine
http://www.means-of-escape.com/content/protecting-escape-routes-smoke-shafts-v-pressurisation 6/6
British Standards Fire Advice Fire Courses Fire Fighting Equipment Fire Magazine Fire Marshal Training Fire Regulations Fire Safety Fire Safety Advice Fire Safety Directory
Fire Safety Events Fire Safety Information Fire Safety Management Fire Safety News Fire Safety Publication Fire Safety Regulations Fire Safety Signs Fire Safety Training
Fire Signs Fire Supplier and Manufacturers Directory Fire Training Fire Warden Training Passive Fire Protection Premises Information Box Regulatory Reform Order
Risk Assessment
Copyright 2014 Think Agency - Website Designers Kent
Listing Packages & Prices
Fire Safety Guides
Fire & Escape Doors Part 1 Training Guide
Fire & Escape Doors Part 2 Training Guide
Fire Action Notice Training Guide
Arson Prevention Training Guide
Reducing False Alarms Training Guide
Accreditation And Certification Training Guide
Managing Flammable Substances Training Guide
The Fire Risk Assessment Training Guide
Fire Safety In Houses In Multiple Occupation
Buiness Continuity Management Part 1 Training Guide
Glossary Of Terms Training Guide
Managing Electrical Equipment Training Guide
Business Continuity Management Training
Guide
The Nominated Person Training Guide
Assessment Areas Training Guide
The Responsible Person Training Guide
Fire Safety For Students Training Guide
The Reform Order Training Guide
The Principles Of Good Sign Design Training
Guide
Receptionist Fire Safety Training Guide