Hotel Fire Doors

[nearlythere]

On the matter of whether or not to fit smoke seals to hotel bedroom fire doors I consider it vital to fit seals to such doors.  If any of my staff were carrying out an assessment on behalf of a hotel client I would expect a recommendation to fit smoke seals to selected fire doors including those to bedrooms.

Steve,
Would you not consider it appropriate to assess the door for smoke sealing properties or the lack of it, fit smoke seals if considered necessary and re-assess that the fitting of the smoke seals will fulfil the function for which it is provided?
Or just fit smoke seals.

[dusty]

Always liking a challenge, try this; As 5839 allows heat detection in hotel bedrooms it could be argued that the occupant of the room may kill himself by setting fire to his room. However he may not kill or endanger other occupants. Therefore the smoke from the fire should be permitted to gradually leak into the corridor, setting off the corridor smoke detection and warning other residents to evacuate before the bedroom door fails.

[stevew]

Hi nearlthere

We do carry out a visual assessment of all fire doors.  
What we come across is that you could ''count on one hand'' the number of good fitting doors.  When we take into account the results of tests I am  convinced that the fitting of cold smoke seals to hotel fire doors is vital.  I feel that any other approach would be failing to provide my client with ''best'' advice.

My advice would be to set a programme of work perhaps over several years rather than months.   This would reduce the immediate burden on the client (a matter close to the Governments heart when they considered the introduction of the RRO).  Unfortunately some fire authorities don't appreciate the importance an effective  programme against getting standards in place post 10.2006, standards that they had no powers to require under the FPAct 1971.  
 
A possible future scenario.
Fire door fails to prevent the passage of smoke into a corridor resulting in fatalities due to smoke inhalation.
Client informs me that post incident he was told that fire tests carried out in the 80's recommended smoke seals.  You can imagine the next question.

Dusty
Regarding your comment on smoke being allowed to enter the escape route before it hits a smoke detector is prehistoric.
I go back to the effective programme route of replacement smoke for heat in the bedrooms.

[nearlythere]

Hi nearlthere

We do carry out a visual assessment of all fire doors.  
What we come across is that you could ''count on one hand'' the number of good fitting doors.  When we take into account the results of tests I am  convinced that the fitting of cold smoke seals to hotel fire doors is vital.  I feel that any other approach would be failing to provide my client with ''best'' advice.

My advice would be to set a programme of work perhaps over several years rather than months.   This would reduce the immediate burden on the client (a matter close to the Governments heart when they considered the introduction of the RRO).  Unfortunately some fire authorities don't appreciate the importance an effective  programme against getting standards in place post 10.2006, standards that they had no powers to require under the FPAct 1971.  
 
A possible future scenario.
Fire door fails to prevent the passage of smoke into a corridor resulting in fatalities due to smoke inhalation.
Client informs me that post incident he was told that fire tests carried out in the 80's recommended smoke seals.  You can imagine the next question.

Dusty
Regarding your comment on smoke being allowed to enter the escape route before it hits a smoke detector is prehistoric.
I go back to the effective programme route of replacement smoke for heat in the bedrooms.

Steve. If the fitting of smoke seals is vital why have a several year programme? They can't be that vital.
How does the smoke detection in the corrider operate if the doors prevent the passage of smoke? Surely your risk assessment would recommend the provision smoke seals on doors to corridors which then means that smoke detection in the corridors is not necessary?

[stevew]

nearlythere

What I am saying is not necessarily priority one but vital within the programme.

It may be me but I cannot understand your second point (its been a long day)
What I am advocating is smoke detection in bedrooms and corridors.  Fire in bedroom would be picked up by detection before smoke has a chance to enter the corridor,  hopefully giving building occupants in the area more time to evacuate.  

Surely the prime function of smoke detection in corridors should not be as the first line of defence from a fire in a bedroom.

[kurnal]

Always liking a challenge, try this; As 5839 allows heat detection in hotel bedrooms it could be argued that the occupant of the room may kill himself by setting fire to his room. However he may not kill or endanger other occupants. Therefore the smoke from the fire should be permitted to gradually leak into the corridor, setting off the corridor smoke detection and warning other residents to evacuate before the bedroom door fails.

Somewhere in this forum HRH Colin Todd has posted an excellent summary of the rationale linking smoke detectors in rooms and fire door seals. Its well worth a read. And he refers to detailed test and modelling carried out by the BRE many years ago to study the effectiveness of smoke detectors in corridors, smoke seals on doors etc. The Rt Hon John S Webb has also posted details of this on this forum- well worth a search.

Theres just a couple of points I want to offer in response to Dustys posting. The BRE tests indicated that without seals on doors, most of the smoke that gets into the corridor actually comes from pyrolisis of the timber in the gap betwen the door leaf and frame rather than from the seat of the fire in the room itself, it is therefore cool and not bouyant enough to reach the detectors at ceiling level in some circumstances. Smoke detectors of the day in hotel rooms did give much earlier warning of fire but led to many false alarms which led to a reluctance by guests to respond to fire alarms creating further danger. Modern multi sensor alarms can deal with most of these but at about 6-  10 times the cost of a conventional detector. Heat detectors in rooms give ample warning to protect the means of escape and no false alarms.

The idea ( I think Fred posted this some time ago) of heat  detectors in rooms linked to the main fire alarm system, coupled with a mains powered domestic smoke alarm in each  guest bedroom room is a cracker in my view.

[Tom Sutton]

Well worth a read http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=786 item 4

[Davidrh]

Hi all

Just to let you know I took your advise and contacted Envirograf.
£6148.00 plus VAT to fit the seals to our doors.
Frankly the business does not have that sort of money lying around so ....

[kurnal]

So the perhaps best answer is to identify those doors that are a key priority and upgrade those.

Year 1- doors to staircases and repair any that are a poor fit.
Year 2-doors in dead end bed room  corridors and smoke stop doors on corridors
Year 3- doors  to other rooms- bars etc that could affect MOE from sleeping areas
Year 4- doors to bedroom  corridors where there is two way travel and many bedrooms opening into that section
Year 5- remaining doors.

I am sure no enforcement offier could argue with such an approach.

[Davidrh]

Hi Kurnal
Thanks for the suggestion.
I meet with the officer on Tuesday and will put my case based or your suggestion
I really do appreciate your advise

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I like your approach Kurnal and to be honest, I would agree with that as a method I would use.
For me, the priority would be to get rid of the heat detectors in room and have smoke detectors, and before I get ripped to bits, I know all ablout the false alarm issue, but I value the life of an occupant more than the inconvenience of a false alarm.
There are of course, interim measures such as single point detectors where cost is a huge problem.

Current cases have referred to CLG guidance which clearly identifies the level of detection required.

As for the doors, I would advise an audit of all doors and a priority list drawn up (like Kurnals). If a responsible person has a documented actionplan which acknowledges the deficiencies and a course of action to rectify them, then I would accept that as it does demonstrate diligence.

Further inspections would be needed to check progress, but that is a monitoring process, not an enforcement notice issue.

On any audit and inspection, I recommend that doors are brought to current standards perhaps as a rolling program. Only new doors which are installed as a set are, as I understand it, capable of meeting the standard of BS476. (you can all shoot me if that's not right!!)

[Davidrh]

Can I ask.
I am happy with Kurnals suggestion of a programme of works.
We have HD's in our bedrooms. Can we change these without re-wiring ??
What about installing  battery domestic type smoke detectors in every hotel bedroom?
We would obviously keep the exisitng HD's.
This would cut down on false alarms and have the added bennifit of stopping people smoking (in a non smoking hotel)
Is there any merit in this idea and would it be worth attaching the idea to Kurmals programme.
I appricate that a smoke alarm going off at the far end of the hotel is not going to attract attetion from the front office but as an extra on what we have now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know fires happen but I would be intereted to know just how many false alarms their are every week (reported and not reported...would you guess at 99% or more...
This is one of the problems the fire authorities have. The general public, in my experience,  generally don't believe in fire alarms (I mean when the go off)

[kurnal]

Yes the existing heat detectors will adequately protect everybody except persons in the room of origin and will alrt staff if there is a real fire in a bedroom, the self contained smoke alarm will provide protection to the occupants should there be a fire in their own room. Go for mains powered with interlinked in suites.

[Graeme]

We have HD's in our bedrooms. Can we change these without re-wiring ??

yes

[PhilB]

.....What about the poor guy in the room of origin? The record shows he doesnt die anyway. In a study carried out in fires over a 5 year period prior to introducing detectors in bedrooms, not a single sould died from fire in any star rated hotel in the UK. Thos who died in non-star rated accommodation were mostly in hostel-like properties, and those who died in the room of origin were committing suicide or were out of it on drugs or alcohol in the main.
So those who do require s/d in bedrooms are trying to save the lives of those who never die anyway---to the detriment of the safety of others.....

As most of you know I would never be controversial, but on this occasion I must agree with Toddddy.

The person in the room of origin is not particularly at risk. Yes people do of course die in the room of origin but as Toddy correctly points out, not in star rated hotels.

Can anyone tell me of a fire in an hotel where a person died in the room of origin since the previous study was carried out?

In a new installation of course I would always now recommend smoke detection because modern systems can engineer out the false alarm problem.

But in an existing hotel with heat detection would the limited funds not best be spent on upgrading doors rather than spending money solving a problem that statistic prove doesn't exist?