| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 807
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - 10:08 am: |    |
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. |
Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: wilsonconsulting
Post Number: 71
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - 10:52 am: | |
If you mean locking cabinets, options for standard cabinets include cam locks that resist vandalism but can be opened in an emergency by sharply pulling on the handle (good for facilities frequented by teenagers) or cylinder locks, which can only be opened by an authority w/ access to key.
A higher level of tamper resistance can be achieved w/ "security cabinets" (intended for psychiatric units, detention facilities, etc.) which offer the option of a deadlock or snaplatch.
All of these are included in MasterSpec Section 104413. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 284
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - 12:20 pm: | |
Jerome, are you talking about these?
http://www.engaugeinc.net/fire-extinguisher-monitoring
I had a devil of a time getting help from the manufacturer with this as their phones were down when I was writing my spec. Their tech guy finally did call me back and was very helpful.
From what I recall, the tether that runs from the extinguisher to the monitor is typically surface mounted on the wall. If the extinguisher is in a recessed cabinet, you can run the tether inside the wall but it still has to daylight to attach to the monitor. The monitor should be positioned below the extinguisher so it can identify when the extinguisher is blocked for extended periods.
The monitor communicates with the building fire or security systems via wireless so there's no issue about coordinating wiring. The fire or security system specs need to cross-reference back to ensure coordination for communication between systems.
It seems like a neat system. |
Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - 06:31 pm: | |
I had always thought the "break glass" handle was intended to provide "tamper proof" cabinet doors without limiting access to the extinguisher. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 290
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - 10:30 am: | |
I guess it's proven ineffective in preventing vandals who don't hesitate to break the glass and either steal the extinguisher or ruin property by spraying. Seems to happen at schools and churches from the sounds of things. This device sends an immediate alarm that the extinguisher has been removed from its bracket and allows quick response. Even if the 'break glass' sounds an alarm (and how often is it actually connected to one?), is anyone monitoring it? I guess the same could be asked about this alarm, but since it's actually tied to the fire and security alarms, someone better be. |
scott piper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 - 09:08 am: | |
In our area the issue has become scrap metal value of the canisters. People are not vandalizing property they are just trying to make a buck. There are a lot of different reasons to want or need tamper proof cabinets |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 291
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 - 09:54 am: | |
Maybe we need legislation making stealing a fire extinguisher a form of attempting premeditated murder. Bad enough that thugs are breaking into people's houses to steal their copper plumbing pipes. There has to be a way to stop this.
This is sad. |
scott piper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 - 06:52 pm: | |
ken:I know where you are coming from but you have hit on a raw nerve. Stealing fire extinguishers is not a good thing but we have become to preoccupied with providing for ways for amateurs to fight fires.
Meanwhile we are continually eliminating early detection systems in favor of more extinguishers and sprinklers. Why? because "sprinklers save lives" (millions of bumper stickers could not be wrong). Sprinklers save property while a good fire alarm system could (and often times would) notify you far sooner, thus allowing you time to get out.
I had a discussion with a local fire chief on a small private school project because he wanted us to provide fire extinguishers at a classroom door that led directly outside. The door was not the exit but rather the secondary means of egress as well as access to an outdoor "educational patio" (not my term, the schools).
He insisted that 1) the door was an exit because you could exit through it and 2) wouldn't you want the teacher to be able to put out a simple waste can fire if one existed.
At this point I pointed out very passionately that I would want that teacher to get their butt and the 25 little butts in their care to the exterior in the predetermined area, do a head count, double check the head count, report the successful head count to the principal and then they would turn around and join the children in watching the building burn to the ground.
To many people die trying to save their home or their business, maybe we should remove some of the temptation to do so. I apologize for getting on my soapbox about this but sometimes we need to leave the fire fighting to the pros.
[put in paragraphs for ease of reading - Colin] |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 267
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2012 - 08:38 am: | |
Just as an aside, we have worked with a few Universities that have specifically asked, and the fire marshal agreed, to not provide fire extinguishers in the public spaces due to theft and vandalism, especially in dormitories. They prefer to allow the alarm and sprinkler systems to do the job. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 292
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2012 - 10:52 am: | |
Don, the request for the monitored extinguisher came from the facility manager of a major university. It's becoming their campus standard from the sounds of things. At least dorms are usually built like prison cells so property damage is minimized. Hopefully the occupants don't ignore real fire alarms after being subjected to frequent prank alarms.
Scott, I'm right there with you buddy. I've got a 9 year old daughter and the last thing I want is for some 'hero' to risk her life thinking that he or she can put out a fire. I've seen fires and the speed they can spread. School walls are covered with kids' projects, all of which are incredibly flammable. The classrooms are filled with all kinds of papers, arts and crafts 'stuff', etc, all of which is flammable. Anyone who thinks that our attempts to make schools non-combustible have to step away from the Kool-Aid. It's the smoke that will do more harm than the fire at first. Get the heck out of the building!
Think about how many MILLIONS of sprinkler heads have been recalled over the past 10 years. It's why I got involved with FCIA to push the FM certified applicator program for firestopping and other forms of passive fire-resistance. UL now has a similar program. I really believe that other than small projects, every project should require an approved firestopping installer as the sole entity responsible for firestopping on projects. Small price to pay for saving lives of occupants and fire fighters.
Once firestopping is in place it usually stays in place and provides protection, presuming no one drills or cuts new holes in the rated assemblies without firestopping them.
No apologies for pontificating. This topic is important. Too bad we can't make firestopping and passive fire-protection as important in people's minds as LEED certification is. |
scott piper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2012 - 01:55 pm: | |
ken, I agree with you entirely on the passive fire-protection. One of my biggest battles is getting the low voltage cable installers (computers, security systems, fire alarm systems, etc.)to utilize the multi-cable penetration systems that we specify (EZ-path or Hilti speed sleeves).
They continue to install conduit sleeves with no fire stopping around the outer part of the sleeve and no fire stopping in the conduit itself once they are done with cable installation.
I have had more than one installer tell me: well the owner is just going to pull out the sealant anyway once they want to add or remove a cable. (of course this would be the very reason why we specified the system we did but that rational falls on deaf ears).
Naturally, once we have all of the installers convinced to install what we specified wireless technology will make it all a mute point. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 02, 2012 - 02:23 pm: | |
Quote: "I have had more than one installer tell me: well the owner is just going to pull out the sealant anyway once they want to add or remove a cable."
Can you say "code violation"? The contractor shouldn't care less what the owner will do--it's the contractor's responsibility to comply with laws and regulations, whether the drawings indicate it or not. If the drawings do show it, and the contractor doesn't install it, it is a deficiency and the A/E should not accept the work.
If the owner pulls the firestopping out after occupancy and the fire-resistive wall assembly fails due in part to the penetration, then the owner is liable; otherwise, if it wasn't installed originally by the the contractor, the contractor may be held liable.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
|
4specs.com Home Page