| 1. |
- Aamodt, Edvard, et al.
(författare)
-
Review of efficient manual fire extinguishing methods and equipment for the fire service
- 2020
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The late 90s and the early 2000s was a period with relative extensive research and innovation in the area of manual fire extinguishing methods and equipment for the fire service. New equipment such as the cutting extinguisher and extinguishing spears allowed to conduct offensive attacks from the exterior of a building, reducing the exposure of fire fighters to fire and smoke and their associated risks in general. This led to the development of new firefighting tactics, as for example the Quadrant Model of the Dutch fire service, which extends the “traditional” offensive interior attack and defensive exterior attack by the offensive exterior attack and defensive interior attack.Recently the research focus has furthermore increasingly shifted to environmental aspects, such as the water consumption and effect of additives (i.e., foam) on humans and the environment. Extinguishing with smaller amounts of water is beneficial for the environment, reduces water damage and lowers the burden on the water delivery system.ConclusionIn conclusion, the systems most relevant to be further tested in a fire situation in a small house or dwelling are the cutting extinguisher and the extinguishing spear.These systems are different in operation but have both shown to be promising with regard to fulfilling the different objectives of the overall project. Being relatively easy to utilize with the right training during internal extinguishing efforts executed from the outside of the building, and being only water based to minimize contamination, due to lower water consumption, of the surrounding areas give these systems advantages over conventional equipment.Especially if the systems are used in combination with an IR camera to locate the fire, the extinguishing efforts can be started early and effectively, and the water amount needed to control the fire may be reduced. The need for firefighters with breathing apparatus is reduced as well, hence reducing the smoke exposure to firefighters.The fact that the fire service also recognizes the potential of using these systems early in the extinguishing efforts, and is working on implementing them, prompts the need for scientific backup.
|
|
| 2. |
- Aamodt, Edvard, et al.
(författare)
-
Sikkerhetsbehov for kullgriller i restauranter
- 2020
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The RISE report 2019:04 «Charcoal and wood burning ovens in restaurants – Fire safety and documentation requirements» [1] investigated regulations and documental demands tied to charcoal and wood burning ovens in restaurants in Norway. A part of the conclusion in this report emphasized the need for, through physical testing, mapping whether existing test standards covers the safety requirements of charcoal ovens in restaurants. NS-EN 13240:2001 «Roomheaters fired with solid fuel. Requirements and test methods» [2] was chosen as a relevant test standard. Three test ovens (a closed test oven, a dummy oven and an open test oven) was produced at RISE Fire Research. Their construction with regard to insulation capabilities, materials and dimensions was based on existing charcoal ovens placed on the Norwegian marked. This was done to achieve an objective depiction of the issue, without the need for a specific brand of ovens. Restaurant oven charcoal was utilized to achieve as real heat development as possible in the test ovens. The test layout is based on NS-EN 12340:2001, with a test rigg constructed of two «safety walls», ceiling and floor attached with thermocouples. Temperatures from the test oven are registered in the safety walls at several positions according to a standardised grid, and in the ceiling and the floor each have one single measurement position measuring warmest point. Thermocouples in the chimney and exhaust duct measured the flue gas temperatures transported to the exhaust system. Four different tests were conducted, where the first one was a standardized safety test including the closed oven model. The second test was the same safety test setup with the dummy oven besides the closed oven. The dummy contained a built-in propane burner to simulate the heat load from a real oven. The purpose was to simulate two ovens placed next to each other. The third test was an overload test on the closed test oven with 150 % fuel load and higher refuelling frequency. The last test was a test of the open test oven. The safety test method described in NS-EN 13240:2001 is suitable to test the level of stable maximal temperature in the surrounding combustible materials, in the same way as for roomheaters, which the method is designed for. The method addresses safety aspects such as surface temperatures and handles on the oven. Tests show that the temperatures developed in the ovens have the potential to breech the temperature criterion given by the test standard, and therefore contribute to the ignition of surrounding combustible materials. Such situations pose a fire risk and safety measures regarding this aspect must be documented by the producer. NS-EN13240:2001 does not cover temperatures for exhaust duct and the production of sparks and their possible spread to combustible materials. These are important safety aspects which must be addressed when documenting the fire safety of restaurant grills. Tests show that sparks are created in the oven, including from restaurant charcoal fuel, and are transported into the exhaust duct, and out through the opening of the grill door. Together with high flue gas temperatures in the exhaust duct and deposits of soot and cooking oil this pose a fire risk. Documentation must therefore be presented, showing that the oven is equipped with measures (for instance spark screen) which guards the exhaust duct from sparks to a satisfactory degree. Operators of the oven must receive adequate training and must operate the closed oven with caution, as to avoid incidents with sparks being released though the door. The placement of ovens next to each other does not seem to increase the heat load on surrounding walls but may lead to increased temperatures in between the ovens. The consequences of temperature increases must be documented. Tests show that overloading with fuel and intensifying the refuelling intervals can lead to increased temperatures in the oven, which can affect materials and welding seams. Overloading can also affect the temperatures towards surrounding walls and exhaust ducts and therefore may affect fire safety negatively. NS-EN 13240:2001 requires the producer to documents how the oven is constructed and of what materials, and that the welding seams are dimensioned for the materials used. It is recommended that the producer documents the safety level of the oven materials with an overload test. It must also be documented that the exhaust ducts in which the flue gas are transported are constructed to handle the potential temperatures that can arise, including erroneous use.
|
|
| 3. |
- Storesund, Karolina, et al.
(författare)
-
Bruk av heis til evakuering ved brann
- 2020
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Utkastet til standard «prNS 3807:2019 Bruk av heis til evakuering» er utarbeidet med hensikt åetablere bestemmelser som kan benyttes for å bruke heis til evakuering av bygninger og anlegg,selv om byggteknisk forskrift (TEK17) angir at «Heis og rulletrapp kan ikke være del av fluktveieller rømningsvei. Slike innretninger skal stoppe på en sikker måte ved brannalarm». Det vises tilkrav til at økt tilgjengelighet, inkludert for personer med nedsatte funksjonsevner, medfører øktekrav til evakuering. Såkalte «sikre heissoner» skal bidra til at heiser skal kunne være i drift lengretid enn det som er tillatt i dag.RISE Fire Research har fått i oppdrag fra Direktoratet for byggkvalitet (DiBK) og Direktoratetfor samfunnssikkerhet og beredskap (DSB) å undersøke forutsetninger ved sikkerhetsbarrierer oghensyn til menneskelig adferd i prNS 3807:2019.Med utgangspunkt i oppdragsgivers spørsmål er noen usikkerhetsmomenter identifisert medhensyn til trygg bruk av heis ved brann i prNS 3807:2019. Noen er knyttet til vurdering av kriterierfor røykproduksjon og aktivisering av heisstopp. Brannskille i ventesone som oppfyller kriterieneangitt i prNS 3807:2019 vil ikke nødvendigvis forhindre røykspredning. Det er også usikkert hvorgodt de logiske heissonene, som er åpne og altså ikke er omgitt av noen skiller, ivaretarsikkerheten for personer som venter på en heis.Det angis ingen krav til minimumsstørrelse på fysisk heissone eller krav til plass forrullestolbrukere, noe som kan lede til at rømningsveier blir sperret og til opphopning av folk.Det er spesiell usikkerhet er knyttet til informasjon og kommunikasjon om evakueringen.Manglende krav til informativ talemelding kan bidra til at personer ikke forstår hva lyssignal ogtekst betyr, og dermed setter seg selv i fare. Det fremstår slik at sikkerheten i stor grad er avhengigav organisatoriske tiltak, noe som det i varierende grad kan legges til rette for avhengig av hvabygningen skal brukes til. Det kan være utfordrende å sikre at organisatoriske planer følges i langtid etter at de ble vedtatt i et brannkonsept, for eksempel siden aktiviteten og bruken av bygningenkan forandre seg over tid.Det stilles ikke krav om nærliggende alternative rømningsveier/trapp i anslutning til heis, dersomgitte barrierer blir brutt slik at ventesonen blir røykfylt og heisen stopper.Standarden legger kun opp til brukerstyring ved evakuering, dvs. det er brukerne selv somprioriterer hvem som kan ta heisen. Derfor ivaretas ikke nødvendigvis de som har størst behovfor rømning med heis.Sosiale bånd kan både forsinke og effektivisere en evakuering, avhengig av forholdene iforbindelse med alarmen (type bygning, aktivitet i bygningen, karakteristiske forhold vedbrannen, etc.) og menneskene som evakuerer (er de i slekt, kjenner de hverandre, andre faktorersom påvirker hvordan individer samhandler ved en hendelse).Med hensyn til å endre på innlært adferd (at man ikke skal ta heisen når alarmen går), vil detsannsynligvis kreves mye informasjonsarbeid for å få folk til å faktisk bruke heisen, og de vil nokvære mer villige å benytte seg av den jo høyere etasje de oppholder seg på. Når folk først har lærtseg at heis er trygt, er det uvisst om det er en reell risiko for at folk vil ta heisen også ved brann ibygg som ikke har «trygge soner».Kunnskap om hvordan man skal oppføre seg i en spesifikk bygning ved en brannsituasjon ernødvendig, men det er sannsynligvis ikke gjennomførbart med opplæring på forhånd for allegrupper av brukere i alle typer bygninger. I mange tilfeller vil det være snakk om sporadiskopphold, slik at informasjon i forbindelse med en konkret hendelse vil være mer relevant. Da erbudskapet viktig, og at det fremføres på en måte som alle kan tilegne seg. Det er derfor vanskeligå generalisere eller standardisere behov for opplæring og behov for organisering for alle typerbygg.
|
|
