FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: Eli on November 08, 2011, 09:29:08 PM
-
When faced with a fire door with no traceable history or third party certification how can it be referenced in a report?
Would it be OK to say it is a ‘Notional fire door with an undetermined fire resisting performance’. The risk factor would then need to be established and a recommendation made accordingly.
The concept of notional fire door is in the new guidance for blocks of flats and takes into account historic building standards.
Could a listed door be called a notional fire door too?
Would any of you be brave enough to say it’s a ‘notional - 20 minute or 30 minute fire door.
-
Would any of you be brave enough to say it’s a ‘notional - 20 minute or 30 minute fire door.
In the past I have used the word "Nominal", (being such in name only), to describe such doors, but I would consider notional would to be equally correct, both are a fair description.
As for being brave enough it was certainly done in my day and I expect its done on a daily basis now.
Incidentally there is no such a thing as 20min fire door, Auntie Lin will have your guts for garters.
-
I use the term of a 'nominal fire door' with a 'notional fire resistance' - I know its quite pedantic! This is one of those tricky issues that I've always considered a dark art of the fire safety world and where there's no real specific guidance available I use my judgement to decide whether the door was adequate at the time it was installed as a fire door in the building and then if it retains its original characteristics and hasn't sustained too much damage or alterations before deciding its continuing suitability. There is also the 'risk' attached to the door and what it is protecting - i.e. what is the probability (guesswork) and what are the consequences of failure of the door?
As for a time period I don't think this is necessary and I don't put numbers to the report. Listed and other doors have guidance available in the English Heritage technical guidance note.
-
The references in the flats guidance has its origins in the historic standards. The old BS459 which predated BS476-8 and then itself superceded by BS476-22. Then finally along came BS8214. That leaves us with a whole host of older doors. The old CP3 chapter 4 part 1 from 1962 and 1971 referred to 4 different grades of fire doors T1-T4.
Unless you accept that existing doors in buildings, despite an absence of test data, have played and can in many situations continue to play a fire safety role in buildings then you will create an unaffordable burden on the UK economy. Whether you call them notional or nominal or something else entirely is up to you. Fire ratings are a benchmark. How a particular door of a particular construction performed in a particular BS476 test.
As Golden points out the Heritage groups have conducted a series of tests on a range of different doors and also have tested ways of improving their fire performance. Many such tests were carried out and documented by IFC. If you copy such a spec exactly then it may be legitimate to claim a fire performance expressed in minutes. Otherwise a comment on whether it is fit for purpose and evidence to support that judgement should be sufficient.
Golden has it in a nutshell.
-
Tom
This taken from the new flats guidance, which can not be wrong as Colin wrote it. Plus he did a presentation at the FIA CPD day in which he referred to it in reference to front doors of flats and not internal doors.
Fire-resisting doors 62.12 under current benchmark design guidance, doors forming part of the protected entrance halls and stairways within flats are normally specified as 20-minute fire-resisting doors (designated FD20). Similarly, doors forming part of the protected escape route from the flat entrance door to the final exit, including the flat entrance door itself, are normally specified as 30-minute fire-resisting doors with smoke seals (designated FD30S).
I am in fact after a ‘cast iron’ caveat. Would notional fire door do the trick when describing a door with no traceability?
-
I am in fact after a ‘cast iron’ caveat. Would notional fire door do the trick when describing a door with no traceability?
The only way is to remove the whole assembly and take it off for testing - hugely expensive and results in a big hole in the wall! As I said in my earlier post there is no way to have a 'cast iron' guarantee of a door's fire resistance whether 100 years old or fitted yesterday, its all a bit subjective and is why we can't rely on a single door. Lets face it most of the critical ones are wedged open anyway - but not when the assessor comes round so you can get your FRA without a problem - and its only an experience assessor that can detect the tell-tale signs of wedging open!
Its also a bit like the nice modern fire doors in a nice modern office block I surveyed on Monday; lovely doors and frames but shame about the gap of about 20mm between the frame and the blockwork - no problem though as there was a nice bit of architrave to cover it up and make a neat job.
-
Too true Golden.
Its also worth pointing out they I recently bought some 30 mins and one 60 min door for testing from a large supplier. None of which lasted the required amount of time even though they were sold as 30mFDR and 60.
So these are doors recently bought, hung properly and with paperwork
-
Eli you can specify 20FD but do they exist, check out a part FAQ from Chiltern Fire, For economic reasons, manufacturers generally test to achieve 30 minutes and sell the same product for 20 minute applications. Unless there is specific test evidence, 20 minute fire doorsets still require the intumescent strips tested for 30 minutes to be fitted. Purchasers should satisfy themselves that acceptable evidence exists, rather than working to out of date prescriptive solutions. Can you see manufacturers paying for two complete tests when one will do.
One of the definitions of notional is "not based on fact" a definition of nominal is "being such in name only" so I would used the word nominal but does it matter you are never going to get a ‘cast iron’ caveat, lawyers will argue over definitions until the cows come home.
-
But what do you do with the wall the door is in? Is that FR? notionally or nominally??
-
We use nominal for the older style rebated doorsets and old OSRP/FA/FPA upgraded doors & where dout exists.
With structure some assumptions are made from visual inspection only - we have disclaimers that destructive and intrusive testing of all passive elements has not been carried out and where we have a serious concern recommend a survey by a passive fire protection engineer which may include sampling.
-
Much of this debate centres round the old terminology of the earlier standard. Remember the term "firecheck" doors- these were 30/20 doors commonly used at the time in flats and as cross corridor fire doors. The "stability" element dissapeared from the BS test and the commercial incentive to manufacture dissapeared with it. Of course many millions remain in situ and in many cases are as fit for purpose today as when they were installed.
In response to Tom FD20S and E20 doors are still referred to in table B1 of the ADB so a potential market remains.
-
In response to Tom FD20S and E20 doors are still referred to in table B1 of the ADB so a potential market remains.
Kurnal my point was you can specify FD20 doors and yes they are still referred to, but can you purchase one. Manufacturers only produce FD30 doors for economic reasons so if you specify a FD20 door it is going to be a FD30 door installed. Some doors are described FD20/30, but they are FD30 doors, consequently are FD20 by default and you must not relax any of the specifications.
Check out http://www.bwf.org.uk/assets/explaining_fd20s_factcard_13.pdf
-
How does this work for everyone; on a fire door inspection when faced with a fire door with no traceable evidence would the following descriptor be a good caveat?
…….a notional fire door with a notional fire resisting performance of 30minutes. (60)
When faced with a door that is not a fire door ie listed what about this.
……a nominal fire door with nominal fire resisting performance. The potential impact on life safety of this doors nominal fire performance in the event of a fire should be addressed through a fire risk assessment
-
Hi Eli, if you don't believe it to be a fire door then you can't describe it as such - nominal, notional or otherwise - and only doors that were originally installed as fire doors would fit this description. You would have to have some evidence of its properties based on your knowledge and experience otherwise you don't accept the door as having any fire resistance beyond a few minutes. Its not about the listing of the property or doors, I've recommended listed doors to be upgraded and this can be a very expensive process requiring skilled craftsmen so not to be undertaken lightly.
Where you do have some evidence I would personally describe the door as a 'nominal (i.e. in name only) fire door with a notional (i.e. based on theory not on reality) fire resistance'. I would not put any time standard on the description even if it was a relatively good door in a sound frame.
If the thread is more about doors in listed properties then you will need to read the English Heritage guidance notes which give good descriptions on how to assess and upgrade doors.
-
Hi Golden
I am trying to get together two descriptors that could be included in a report on fire doors as a functional piece of fire safety.
I see three distinct categories of door/sets
1 the door with evidence
2 the door that looks feels and smells like a fire door but without evidence
3 the door that just isn’t a fire door.
Based on the two definitions used by Tom I would assume that the door with evidence is a factual description and can therefore be named FD30S or whatever it may be. Piglet makes a good point but in a legal case this would stand up I am sure.
The door without evidence is a fire door but not based on fact ie Notional and therefore if it was in a hole in the compartment where an FD30S should be, it could be described as such; a Notional (not based on fact) FD30S or whatever it may look like.
And the 3rd type is in name only a ‘fire door’ as it will prevent some flame some smoke from getting past for an undetermined amount of time ie nominal (in name only) FD with nominal fire resistance.(in name only) I guess this could be described as ‘not a fire door’.
The last may be a danger to life safety, the second may not last the designated time and therefore may impact on escape strategy/life safety and the first one should perform at the level it says it does.
-
Hi Golden
I am trying to get together two descriptors that could be included in a report on fire doors as a functional piece of fire safety.
I see three distinct categories of door/sets
1 the door with evidence
2 the door that looks feels and smells like a fire door but without evidence
3 the door that just isn’t a fire door.
Based on the two definitions used by Tom I would assume that the door with evidence is a factual description and can therefore be named FD30S or whatever it may be. Piglet makes a good point but in a legal case this would stand up I am sure.
The door without evidence is a fire door but not based on fact ie Notional and therefore if it was in a hole in the compartment where an FD30S should be, it could be described as such; a Notional (not based on fact) FD30S or whatever it may look like.
And the 3rd type is in name only a ‘fire door’ as it will prevent some flame some smoke from getting past for an undetermined amount of time ie nominal (in name only) FD with nominal fire resistance.(in name only) I guess this could be described as ‘not a fire door’.
The last may be a danger to life safety, the second may not last the designated time and therefore may impact on escape strategy/life safety and the first one should perform at the level it says it does.
Just to be pedantic can you say that a fire door is a factual description unless it has been tested as one? Is a door being produced as a fire door not a notional door as its construction is only based on one that proved itself through testing?
Just to be pedantic and it's Friday.
-
on a fire door inspection when faced with a fire door with no traceable evidence would the following descriptor be a good caveat?
How would you know if it was a fire door if there were no traceable evidence?
Is it just a case of "if it looks like/ feels like/ there should have been a fire door here so this must be one/ etc?
-
Eli
Agree with your three categories ;D
As others have said the actual frame and fitting should be your main concern ???
davo
-
Just to be pedantic can you say that a fire door is a factual description unless it has been tested as one? Is a door being produced as a fire door not a notional door as its construction is only based on one that proved itself through testing?
Just to be pedantic and it's Friday.
I agree NT but with a certified door set if the proverbial hits the fan you got somebody else to blame if not you are on your lonesome. Having said that with the safety factors being so generous IMO the chances are pretty slim.
-
Hi Eli, yes I suppose that as three broad categories those descriptors would do the trick - category 2 is going to be the broadest with a long description although it would be useful to start using the term 'doorsets' as the frame/rebates/hinges/etc. all come into play in the decision making process.
I also believe this is one of the areas that isn't really spoken about too much as it would open the proverbial 'can of worms' and I'm sure the door manufacturers are already lobbying hard for all doors to be certified.
-
Golden
I think that most new fire door sets do now come with some third party approval.
The biggest issue as Kurnal says is how you know what it is and what it is supposed to be.
My take is that if there are some historical plans or known building regulations (historic if needed) it should be possible to establish what should have been installed. The skill of the door assessor is to look for this evidence and then make a professional judgement based on what is in front of him as to if that is what it should be. As this is opinion and not based on fact it is a ‘notional’ fire door. If no such evidence can be found and it isn’t obvious that it is supposed to be a fire door then it could be down graded to a ‘nominal’ or ‘not a fire door’.
I believe definitions of ‘notional’ and ‘nominal’ could be agreed easily and with an agreed approach a more consistent appraisal by assessors could be achieved. Plus the FRS couldn’t come in and demand a whole new set of fire doors; not that they do that, but it could happen.
-
I don't really understand why you're trying to lable it. Each site will be different, after a judgement using experience and common sense you are better describing what you have done and what resistant you believe the door to have. If you have lable the door you're then shoehorning a lot of doors into that category. In effect giving the assessor an easy way out.
Like I said early even brand new doors with paperwork, approval won't meet the required resistance they are being sold as.
-
Eli I should have emphasised the 'all' in my comment as a new door wouldn't be acceptable without some sort of TPA, my belief is that some would like to see only doors with a certificate be given the 'fire door' label and ignore the experience and judgement of the assessor. I have tried to define what I understand by nominal and notional in previous posts, interchangeable to a point but there are slight differences.
Piglet I think you are right about the labelling and that Eli is looking for broad categories where I believe the use of the door is also part of the decision making process and should not be ignored.
-
I am trying to establish some simple guidance to describe fire doorsets; nothing to do with a full fire risk assessment.
Just doorset descriptions so a documented list can be made easily ie ;
A) FD30S
B) FD30S
C) Notional FD30
D) Nominal fire door
E) Nominal fire door
F) Notional FD60
To be able to do this I need a definition of how each is established and what each means.
The risk posed by the different doorsets would not be assessed at this stage.
So assuming my 1, 2 and 3 is OK as a few have said broadly they are; then I am just trying to sort out the definitions of NOTIONAL and NOMINAL. If they are broadly acceptable then everyone will know what a ‘Notional FD30S’ is.
It is a doorset that has no third party evidence but in the opinion of the assessor is in a hole where an FD30S should be (according to original as built plans or building regulations) and is in appearance an FD30S. The performance may not meet the designated performance in the event of a fire.
-
Eli you're making up a list for your own purposes and cannot expect forum members to endorse your definitions. The latest list, in my opinion, confuses the terms of notional and nominal which have been discussed earlier. Its also quite clear that you cannot categorise non-certified doors - and to state that one has a notional 60 minute fire resistance is way off the mark of earlier discussions. I have no problem with discussing a list for personal use but the notion that 'everyone' will know what they are was never in my mind - the technical aspects of fire doors have been laid down in many standards and guidance notes - some of which have been referred to before in the thread and I suggest that 'everyone' reads these to understand the issues.
-
Completely agree with Golden. You should also make people aware that you are canvassing for people to endorse a list you are compiling.
-
Completely agree with Golden. You should also make people aware that you are canvassing for people to endorse a list you are compiling.
Sorry Piglet and Golden I am just asking for opinions from forum members to see if I am barking up the wrong tree. Sound boarding, which is how I thought the forum worked.
If in ‘my’ definitions ‘I’ determined what a notional door was ‘to me’, the people who where presented with the definition would understand what ‘I’ meant in a brief listing of their fire door stock. I don’t think that’s too off the mark or too wacky a notion. So instead of saying everyone knowing what it means; I possibly could have said the client who has the definition in front of them will know what it is.
However having listened to Golden his version of nominal and notional are interchangeable and not the same way I would reference them. I used Tom’s definitions which make complete sense to me. So if there is confusion with what I am attempting to do it’s clearly not working. Which is what I wanted to establish; I think it could work very well but I may need to tweak it some more.
Golden by your own admission this isn’t easy and is a potential ‘can of worms’ which I do want to open. By the comments made I think that many people do it differently and use different terminology which is a clear indication of an underlying problem I think.
-
How would your definitions cope with a non fire rated door that had been upgraded either by one of the historic techniques such as were common in the days of BS459 or by one of the proprietory methods such as intumescent varnishes and paints? Would you then need a further category - upgraded door?
Personally I think you are opening a whole can of worms here and I cannot yet understand what is behind our proposal. I accept I may be being thick as usual Eli but I cannot see why, for whom and for what benefit. Is this for risk assessment or fire audit purposes?
My opinion is that there are too many box tickers and further checklists and labels will not help. What is needed is an educated assessment of each door and its frame, its condition, construction, history, data available, and door furniture within the context in which it is placed.
-
Kurnal audit only.
I agree with your last statement; all that should be done, but then what do you call it after you have done all that?
The examples of upgraded and propriatery treated would still fit 'my' categories as defined previuosly.
-
You call them anything you want because you should be explaining the findings to the RP.
-
I try and restrict terminology to keep it simple and will often use -
FD30S & FD30 etc for solid doors with good frames, hinges, intumescent strips & where appropriate cold smoke seals plus one of the marking systems (plug/label or other evidence)
Nominal 30 minute for the old pre-intumescent seal rebated doors -these now require automatic upgrade in reports.
Upgraded 30 minute for the type that had an asbestolux/superlux panel & frame rebates screwed on in response to the OSRPA & FPA - again recommend replacement
Upgraded FD30S/FD 30 for where a competent passive specialist has done it, certified it and thus took the responsibility for this
Unknown/suspect/non compliant where doubt exists or its clearly not a fire door.
Increasingly I'm getting passive specialists to survey and either replace or upgrade as they see fit as doors are often overlooked and some enforcement authorities are taking an interest - where at one time it would have been OK in their eyes to have upgraded 30 minute or nominal 30 minute doors a few are changing tack and wanting either certified upgrade or replacement to current FD30S specification. As the doors are 30-40+ years old in many cases it's fair enough - after all we have replaced the lions share of 40 year old (but still working) fire alarms and emergency lights!
-
Nominal 30 minute for the old pre-intumescent seal rebated doors -these now require automatic upgrade in reports.
Thats where we differ Anthony. I would normally recommend upgrade on staircases and dead end corridors in sleeping risks but make a judgement elsewhere. If they are as good as the day they were fitted I would make a comment on them and recommend that they be monitored but would probably not recommend an upgrade till the place was next refurbished.
I know this does not apply to you AB but following some of the big boys around there seems to be a minimum of risk assessment and a lot of audits to current standards. In my view anyone can recommend wholesale upgrades of old buildings to current ADB standards but that is not what fire risk assessment should be about.
-
100% agree. One of my concerns over the FRA process is that it will merely become an upgrading process where every fire safety measure has to be approved and certified - which will only last until the next electrician/heating engineer/FA installer comes along with their drill anyway. Risk assessment is about taking most of the dominoes out of the row not all of them, some businesses would close if they had to replace all of their old fire doors and the skill of the FR assessor is to inform them of the ones they should replace to make the building safe with respect to life safety for its occupants.
-
Are we not complicating this matter IMO there is only two types of half an hour fire door, and both can be referred to as fire doors.
a. Certifiable fire doors ( fire door with documentation, labels and/or plugs)
b. Non-certifiable fire doors (fire doors without)
Both are fire doors and can be FD30 or FD30s. The only problem is if things go pear shaped and you may need to identify which group the fire door belonged to. You could use any means of identifying these fire doors if you think it is necessary, however the need for this information is pretty remote.
FD60 fire doors are another matter there are less indicators, maybe thickness, maybe if there is glazing but very difficult, possibly only certifiable fire door should be considered, but always taking in to account how vital these fire doors are to your means of escape scheme.
-
Nominal 30 minute for the old pre-intumescent seal rebated doors -these now require automatic upgrade in reports.
Thats where we differ Anthony. I would normally recommend upgrade on staircases and dead end corridors in sleeping risks but make a judgement elsewhere. If they are as good as the day they were fitted I would make a comment on them and recommend that they be monitored but would probably not recommend an upgrade till the place was next refurbished.
I know this does not apply to you AB but following some of the big boys around there seems to be a minimum of risk assessment and a lot of audits to current standards. In my view anyone can recommend wholesale upgrades of old buildings to current ADB standards but that is not what fire risk assessment should be about.
I was/am with you, but unfortunately it's a reaction to recent enforcement notices from more than one brigade where the whole lot have had to be done regardless.
However I will try and give as generous a recommended time-scale as possible for those where realistically they can wait, so it's still highlighted they need replacing without suggesting the client has to do it the next day.
It's not helped by a lot of buildings getting areas refurbished three or four times over a 30 year period yet the old doors (because they've stayed in good nick) have remained as is, some IO's think that for some things the 'until next refurb' is a bit too open ended.
I agree there is a lot of wholesale upgrading (often beyond ADB & BS requirements) by some, which to me seems to suggest that they are not actually risk assessing the building as an individual specific structure with it's specific layout, occupancy and risk, which surely is the point of a paid for external competent person - anyone can go to a building and say 'install the highest grade/level/category of each fire precaution' which isn't the point.
-
Tony, Does that mean if some I/o with little training and experience asked for the fire alarm cie to be painted tartan, that is what you would start recommending in all your FRAs. The fact that enforcing authorities put things in an EN does not make it right! Our files are littered with EN requiring things that are really stupid. A health and safety consultant recently challenged for recommending fire alarm systems in 3 blocks of modern flats gave the lame justification that, often, enforcing authorities require it. He could yet end up paying for his reliance on the requirements of some enforcing authorities as the basis of his FRAs.
-
No, because I've challenged and won several battles, but if the client won't fight it then what can you do!
Putting unnecessary fire alarm systems in that would never be needed isn't in the same vein as upgrades.
Besides the devil is in the detail - I'm certainly not requiring a wholesale next day replacement of every door in every building instantly - the time-scales vary. Yes I almost always mention upgrading, but the time scales differ and it's only if it really needs to be a fire door - a few TD measurements, occ calculations and assessments of risk can sometimes reduce the number of doors needing work significantly and as long as I can justify which do and don't get done still am happy to do so (saving one client a packet by halving the number of doors they were otherwise going to alter)
I dread to think what I would be doing if I believed everything the IO's require and still judge each site on it's merits unlike some.