FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: ps on February 20, 2007, 04:11:05 PM
-
Hi in a lecture theatre, designed to seat 150, currently has 4 exits, two at the bottom, two at the top, each leading to a separate fire protected place of safety, BUT all the doors open inwards......I'm pushing for them all to be turned around so that they lead outwards - ie as part of the escape route....I'm being told they must be OK because they were built that way...
Should I be sticking to my guns, or am I worrying about nothing...
Any views appreciated, all the guidance tells me I'm right (if I'm reading it right) but I'm happy to be shot down in flames so to speak!
-
You should follow the guidance unless there is an over riding reason why it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
It could be critical to the heritage of the building, or steps or something similar.
In these cases you would then have to put additional risk control measures in place to ensure that the inward opening exit did not pose a hazard in case of fire.
Such as stewards to hopefully open them before the mass of people arrived. There may be arguments based on risk, potential growth and development of any fire, tenability of the lecture theatre etc. But the safest and best way is to comply if you can.
-
stick with ur guns
-
Just a quick question, are the stewards there when the theatre is open and how does the Fire Alarm work. If it is staff only alarm then it may be a suitable arrangement in that the staff will open the doors prior to any movement of the individuals. Opening the doors the other way may cause you problems with corridor or exit widths. You cannot allow a door to open into an escape route and block it off.
-
Risk appropriate chaps come on!!!!! What are the ignition sources and fire load?? What is the ceiling height?? Is a fire likely to grow and develop sufficient smoke to compromise escape before the occupants can safely leave??
In the vast majority of lecture theatres I can think of there would be no problem with the doors opening inwards.
-
I was in one lecture theatre in the cotswolds once that actually became a private theatre for an annual pantomime. Mind you the rest of the year was a bit of a panto too.
-
No one died though Kurnal....so it must be safe...and they had sliding doors for means of escape from the bars!!!!! (Actually a few did die on the stage as I remember)
-
Its a risk - first principal of prevention is avoid risks - turn the doors around.
Unless there is a good reason not to.
-
I can't believe what I'm reading on here! Have we not moved forward or are we all still hugging codes!!! The good reason not to Wee Brian may be that there will be no benefit from turning the doors around.
Why do we want doors opening in direction of escape? To prevent delay in evacuating large numbers who may all reach the exits together. I can't see a problem in most of the lecture theatres I have been to.
We are talking 150 max persons. Presumably they are seated in rows, they need to file out into the gangways they will not be arriving at the exits in a stampeding hoard.
The most likely ignition source would be an electrical fault. Source of fuel probably a projector or computer. The fire will be slow developing, it will generate vast amounts of visible smoke, the occupants will be awake (well maybe not!) hopefully sober, probably familiar, probably farely disciplined.
You should take all of the above and more into account and then advise accordingly.
Or ,as a few on here seem to advocate, you could tell them to reverse the doors because the guide says so. Which is the most professional approach I wonder?
If there is good reason, turn them around. If not don't waste peoples money.
-
You are making lots of assumptions Phil.
If you follow your logic through you will have to set rules on how the lecture theatre is to be used to ensure that the risk remains at the level you saw at the time of your assessment. Yes it may be the OHP going up in smoke - or it could be the lab assistant dropping the winchester full of pentane.
Is there no place at all for benchmark standards? Some basic design and management rules usually learned from other peoples mistakes that will ensure that that tragedies and accidents are not repeated?
(I am looking for a new car- trying to find one without a handbrake because I never park on a hill.)
No, theres some universal basic common sense principles that make buildings safe to occupy and that should always be followed unless there is good reason not to. Your hypothesis could be seen as seeking not to put any control measures in place unless you percieve a hazard first.
-
I totally agree with Phil on this.
There's no point having a risk based approach if it's going to be based on a prescriptive ethos or else we could all end up completing risk assessments over the phone or internet
Other points to be considered for an educational lecture theatre (over a cinema/theatre) is the familiarity of the routes by the occupants and the fact that they are not so likely to have visited the pub/theatre bar prior to the performance (athough if the Cotswold example is anything to go by, they may be hungover!)
Kurnal
Surely you don't need control measures (indeed it's impossible to set the level of any control measure) until a hazard or risk has been quantified
-
I must apologise to Phil after accusing him of being a closet prescriptionist. Clearly its worse than that.
Fools logic would, in our magic risk based world, suggest we could lock fire exits, have travel distances of 500m in athletic clubs and have no AFD in well constructed sleeeping accomodation, (good fire doors, limited fire load...will probably burn out)!
This lecture theatre may not be the best example, with limited numbers and 4 exits but the approach that seems to be argued here is that is we can't quantify a significant risk then we don't need to worry about it 'cause it must be trivial.
Risk based approach may allow us to tinker round the edges, extend T/D here, accept a lessar standard fire alarm there, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I believe, though cannot find the reference that outward opening doors grew from a fire at a christening party in the USA. Only about 400 dead. Should keep the risk statisticans busy even if it was 70 years ago.
Maybe a certain technical library can find the evidence and beat google for once.
-
messy
I agree provided you are carrying out your activities in an open field.
The fact that we are putting people inside a combustible box that will contain smoke and products of combustion, and will limit peoples options for moving away from a potential fire making them all move through the same narrow gap in the wall means we then have to consider adopting standard risk control measures such as fire resistance of the structure, control the linings, means of escape, fire alarm, lighting, FFE etc . Outward opening doors are one of these benchmarks that should be incorporated unless there are over riding resons why not.
As it happens a local fire officer has recently, as part of the Buildng regs consultation, required one of my clients to produce a specific fire risk assessment justifying why an inward opening exit door door should be permitted in a new warehouse proposal. I have produced the document following similar principles to those outlined by Phil which the officer has accepted.
-
I think Phil has been kidnapped by aliens - this guy is obviousely an imposter.
I'm all for flexibility but swithcing doors is easy and cheap - The principles of prevention are clear. However small a risk may be if it can reasonably be avoided then thats what should be done.
-
Wow....thanks for such a full response from all, however the variety of views have thrown me somewhat, as I read through each, I find myself agreeing with the author, then moving to the next...then the next...
I realise that this is in part due to the imcomplete information I provided. If it helps, sometimes the lecture theatre can be full with memebers of the public, currently no stewards are appointed, and (one of the main reasons I want to stick to my guns) is that at present, the inward opening doors also enable lazy lecturers NOT TO UNCHAIN some of the existing inward opening doors at the back of the theatre. They are currently unlocked "for security" and scarily, often left locked whilst the theatre is in use.
I can sort of understand the risk based approach of no absolutes, where there is a strong safety culture and management ethos to back it up, but that's simply not the case in the place described as yet!
On balance, I think, despite the cost (and that's the current basis for not complying) I'll stick to my guns...
Many thanks again all
-
I must apologise to Phil after accusing him of being a closet prescriptionist. Clearly its worse than that.
This lecture theatre may not be the best example, with limited numbers and 4 exits but the approach that seems to be argued here is that is we can't quantify a significant risk then we don't need to worry about it 'cause it must be trivial.
That's not what I argue at all Val. What I am saying is as professionals we should justify what we are requiring or recommending with more than "because it says so in a guide"
"....outward opening doors grew from a fire at a christening party in the USA. Only about 400 dead. "...
Val if you cannot appreciate the different measures that may be necessary for hundreds of drunk people at a party and the situation described here I would recommend you consider a career change.
It is me Wee Brian honest, I have never been a prescriptionist.
-
If you follow your logic through you will have to set rules on how the lecture theatre is to be used to ensure that the risk remains at the level you saw at the time of your assessment. Yes it may be the OHP going up in smoke - or it could be the lab assistant dropping the winchester full of pentane.
You of course have to consider the worst case most likely scenario and if there was likely to be gallons of pentane present your calls to reverse the doors would be justified.
I am all for benchmark standards but it appeared to me that the arguements for sticking to the guide in this case were not justified.
-
Risk appropriate chaps come on!!!!! What are the ignition sources and fire load?? What is the ceiling height?? Is a fire likely to grow and develop sufficient smoke to compromise escape before the occupants can safely leave??
In the vast majority of lecture theatres I can think of there would be no problem with the doors opening inwards.
I agree with the above, typical lecture theatres generally have high ceilings, therefore the time to fill for the smoke to get to 3 metres would be sufficient to get all occupants out - but you would have to work this out
-
I know it is all now supposed to be non-prescriptive, but regardless of that the guides are there to work from. The guides mention letting a few more people through an inward opening door dependant on risk.
"The number of 60 can be varied in proportion to the risk; for a lower risk there can be a slight increase..."
150 is not a slight increase. Plus you have members of the public.. therefore you have vulnerable groups?
I guess at the end of the day it should be in the risk assessment, and someone has to take responsiblity for the decision. Should it go wrong then FA will look for reasons/shortcomings/bad decisions. If you know it cannot go wrong then there should be no problem.
Another way to look at it, if there was a problem could people get out quicker/safer through outward opening doors? If so RRO 14(2)(b) & 14(2)(d) surely help?
(2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary :) (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons—
(b) in the event of danger, it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible;
(d) emergency doors must open in the direction of escape;
Also with regards high ceilings, lecture theatres tend to be raised towards the rear of the room so ceiling height is not too good for the people sat at the back, or anyone having to evacuate up the steps.
-
Yes Civvy...but read 'where necessary' before the requirement for doors to open in direction of escape. Yes most guides quote 50-60ish but ask yourself why.
It's a good bench mark more than that it is often a good idea for doors to open outwards but not always!!
The code huggers on here would be happy for 50 people to pass through one inward opening door. In this example there are 4 doors for 150. Take out one with a fire and you have three exits left.
Yes I know we don't know the layout etc etc but if we require all rooms with more than 50 to have outward opening doors regardless of the risk there will be a lot of building work going on all over the u.k.
Why bother to risk assess at all...just apply the guidance.....no need for consultants or professional enforcers.....just anyone who can read a guide!!!
I thought we had moved fire safety forward, apparently not.
-
I think I highlighted the "where necessary" for everyones benefit. :)
Something to bear in mind is that we will all have different opinions and it often shows in this forum.
Where is your cut-off? 200 people in the room? 250? 300?
If its 200, then what about another 10 people?
Then what about another 10?
What about removing one of the doors? Only need 3 standard doors for 200 people. The room is taking less than that. Lower fire risk too so maybe 120 persons per door, thats 240 people through the door widths now.
We will all have our different cut-off point, but unless we stick somewhere close to the guides apart from in the most extreme circumstances it is hard to argue against "just 10 more people".. "just 2 more metres on the dead-end"...
I can see the point about having the 3 exits available, but human behaviour will tend to have almost everyone escaping through the door they entered the room by.
(Just playing a bit of devils advocate really, I am all for relaxing stuff when the risk allows it and couldn't envisage a big problem in a normal lecture theatre.)
-
Where is your cut-off? 200 people in the room? 250? 300?
If its 200, then what about another 10 people?
Then what about another 10?
There should be no cut off. I would use professional judgement in each case. If I was dealing with a building with 500 people one exit and a travel distance of 100m it may be acceptable...if say it was a stonemasons with negigible fuel and few ignition sources and a ceiling height of 20 metres.
Please note I still think there could be a fire....but it's likely development would be so slow that the means of escape may be adequate.
Prescription should no longer be with us as I'm sure most of us on here agree.
-
So 550 people? 600 people? 650 people? 700 people? Theres a "personal" cut-off somewhere where you might decide that another exit is needed, or controls to manage the number of people.
-
Of course there's a personal cut off in each particular case. But that should be based on common sense and professional judgement.
The guides can assist a competent assessor ...but if the assessor cannot move away from the guides when appropriate they should not be assessing...in my opinion only of course.
-
Indeed.
The main point I am trying to make is that I don't have to agree that 4 inward opening doors is ok for a lecture theatre that seats 150 people. A competent assessor may make the decision that it is ok and I may look at it very carefully to see if it was something worth challenging. Chances are it wouldn't be worth challenging because if the assessor is indeed competent then it will be probably be down to a difference in opinion, but at the same time I would not be saying I agree with the assessor, and it would not be my responsibility if anything went wrong.
-
why not compromise and ask for two doors to be turned around? Its cheaper than 4 , and safer than none and you can all walk away with a clear conscience.
-
500 people working in a stone masons???????
You've been watching too much Flintstones!!
-
There needs to be a good and justifiable reason to depart from the published guidance and, in this case, it seems to me that 'ps' has clearly assessed the situation from personal knowledge and experience and made the right decision.
-
Published guidance is a amalgamation of established knowledge. Indeed, it is decades of the best 'risk assessment' consolidated to make most people's life a bit easier. It represents a simple way of complying with legal requirements in most cases. As many posters have noted, there should be good reason to move away from it.
Yes, clever and experienced assessors can move away from the guidance, and indeed should, but the end game in this process is that every tiny decision is challenged and we clog up the courts seeking 'clarification'. This clarification never actually arrives because every situation is subtly different.
So why bother with guides at all? Everything should be risk based... we will get out the probabalistic pocket calculator every time we want to re-site an extinguisher and feed in all the many variables to arrive at a mathematical solution that has covered every possible angle. I may be a 'scientist' by nature but I do not trust it that much. Or, of course, we can go to a guide that says, "it should go here".
-
why not compromise and ask for two doors to be turned around? Its cheaper than 4 , and safer than none and you can all walk away with a clear conscience.
Someone working strictly to the guides could possibly discount the inward opening doors altogether from MOE then using the other 2 "suitable" doors end up with an occupancy of 100. (120 for low risk :))
Swings and roundabouts...
-
Everything has a benchmark to standardise by. Therefore, in any given situation the measures taken or to be taken will fall on what is acceptable in certain situations. You can only get to the answer from knowledge, experience, training and personal qualities, in other words being competent. As a competent fire sfaety individual you will know the bencmarks and this will aid the decison making process. No guess work please, you may inadvertenetly put a life at risk. We as humans do not behave as others thing we do and therefore your calculation, mathematical or not, have to have us as a constant. There are no easy answerrs any more, just be prepared to justify to the Rp, the FSO or a court your decision and let it go from there. In this instance everyone is right because it is their view using their KEPT, that they all have to justify not only to themselves but to others.
-
we will get out the probabalistic pocket calculator every time we want to re-site an extinguisher and feed in all the many variables to arrive at a mathematical solution that has covered every possible angle. I may be a 'scientist' by nature but I do not trust it that much. Or, of course, we can go to a guide that says, "it should go here".
Agreed Val.
The guides are a very useful tool for the average occupier of a premises. Most people who can use the guides would not need a consultant to come anywhere near their premises. Then the consultants can go earn their keep risk assessing the complex premises.
In the case of the lecture theatre the amount spent on a consultant to come and say the doors are ok will probably be about the same as buying a guide then turning the doors round in the first place. :)
From the Fire Service point of view I am sure we will keep trying to keep things near the guides when possible as Fire Authorities would not want to take any responsiblity for saying "These 4 inward opening doors are ok." Can you imagine the attempted liability claim if we were wrong? Consultants can go in, make their opinion, the RP takes the blame, then we will probably say "O.K then. Its not to the guides, but you are responsible for that decision."
-
From the Fire Service point of view I am sure we will keep trying to keep things near the guides when possible as Fire Authorities would not want to take any responsiblity for saying "These 4 inward opening doors are ok." Can you imagine the attempted liability claim if we were wrong? Consultants can go in, make their opinion, the RP takes the blame, then we will probably say "O.K then. Its not to the guides, but you are responsible for that decision."
Then Civvy as I feared we have not moved forward. It should not just be consultants that can interpret the guidance and then use common sense. Surely competent inspecting officers should be able to do that as well.
If they cannot then why should the FRS retain the role of enforcers...give it to environmental health officers, BCOs or indeed anyone who can read a guide and apply it prescriptively.
In my opinion if an inspecting officer cannot take responsibility for justifying his decisions he would be better off riding the big red lorry.
-
I think one has to take into consideration the Fire Service view. We have moved on - as far as we are allowed by the codes. Every code in the country will specify that doors expected to be used by more than 50 or 60 persons should open in the direction of escape. If there a current code of practice which says otherwise then use it, but I think one would be hard pressed to find one.
It would be a very lonely person who would argue against the collective views of codes of practice written by so highly placed authors.
" Your Honour, I did not suggest they reverse the swing of the doors because I thought it would be too much trouble for them to do so"
-
Thirty years ago FSI`s were accused by businesses and fire consultants of being inconsistent. What would they think of the present situation?
-
Every code in the country will specify that doors expected to be used by more than 50 or 60 persons should open in the direction of escape.
Why is that Nearlythere????
You need to understand why the codes say that not just quote it regardless in every situation.
If one doesn't don't know why that recommendation is made, can't identify when it may not be appropriate, and can't explain the reasoning in plain English in each particular case I would suggest one shouldn't be giving advice. That is not directed personally at you Nearlythere, hence the term one.
Take time to look around you, you will find many situations where rooms are used by more than 50 persons and doors open inwards including shops, hotels, pubs, offices etc and there is no problem.
WHERE NECESSARY in order to safegaurd the safety of relevant persons...it apppears many on here are incapable of determining what where necessary means without hugging a code and that concerns me.
-
talking of 'where necessary' in Article 14 (1) it states exit routes and exits are kept clear at all times in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons.
That being said the only time that it would be acceptable to block all routes and exits would be where they are not necessary, one assumes when the building or part of it is not in use?
Example: I own a building with innummerable exits linked by innumerable corridors. Due to the size layout and occupancy of the building I require two exits. That decided I only have to maintain the routes to those two exits clear at all times.
If that is a logical arguement then surely the same would follow for exit doors, if it is deemed that they are necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons (have a fire exit sign above them?) then surely they must open in the direction of escape. It does not state that all doors have to open outwards, only those deemed necessary to safeguard the safety etc.
So it would seem that you determine the number od escape routes/exits required through occupancy numbers/travel distance or both and those exits must be outward opening, any others doors are a bonus.
-
if it is deemed that they are necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons (have a fire exit sign above them?) then surely they must open in the direction of escape. It does not state that all doors have to open outwards, only those deemed necessary to safeguard the safety etc.
No Greg that is not correct. Doors may need to open in direction of escape if a lot of people are likely to arrive at the exits together....there are many exits that open inwards and are perfectly acceptable placing no-one at risk...... but it takes a competent person to recognise when doors need to open in direction of escape and it appears that there are not too many of them around.
If what you say is correct the legislation would have read all emergency doors must open in the direction of escape..........the 'where necessary' would have been omitted, it was not for a good reason.
-
I've got to come in with Phil on this (ish).
I'd rather the doors faced the other way and unless there's some problem I think I would still get them changed. However its not a big deal and Phils argument is a strong one - either way I wouldnt lose any sleep.
For the direction of opening to be an issue, you need enough people to be trying to get out such that the door cannot be opend back towards the crowd. As phil suggests this isnt very likely in some lecture theatres so, if this is the case for the theatre you are dealing with then it would be OK to let it go.
Of course you should record all of this (is it a significant finding - ask me another???). This is especially the case as the Order (yes not just the guide) makes specific reference to doors opening in the direction of escape.
-
but it takes a competent person to recognise when doors need to open in direction of escape and it appears that there are not too many of them around.
Ooh, handbags...
What the new fire safety regime seems to have created is more arguments. Because it is not set in stone what is required then some things turn into a matter of opinion. I don't think anyone has said you are wrong, people's opinions are different and there is clearly no clear cut right or wrong in this case. Some people would be happy with a room with 150 people in and inward opening doors. Some people may be happy if there's only 100 in the room, some people may be happy with 200 in the room.
What you seem to be saying is that because you are a competent person and you decide that inward opening doors are ok, then it is not something open to be challenged, and anyone wanting it closer to the guides is either (a) A guide hugging dinosaur or (b) Incompetent. If you could show some working out or anything that proves it, i.e. fire loading, smoke calcs, likely human behaviour, case history etc, then everyone could just admit you are right. If it is something that is simply based on 'opinion' then you need to allow other people to have theirs.
IF I wanted to argue against your decision I would be mentioning that you have seating in rows, which makes evacuation a bit slower since people tend to have to 'shuffle accross', you have members of the public in there (which class as a vulnerable group), lecture rooms tend to get higher at the back, so a fire at the front could also spread smoke to the top rear doors quickly due to them being closer to the ceiling level cutting of these doors as a MOE. If we have 150 people in the room, a fire at the front would probably lead people to all evacuate via the rear doors, 75 per door is still above suggested limits for inward opening doors. Finally, outward opening doors could be fitted with push pads or push bars to enable quicker escape in the event of an emergency. I will also admit, none of this makes my opinion correct.
-
[
IF I wanted to argue against your decision I would be mentioning that you have seating in rows, which makes evacuation a bit slower since people tend to have to 'shuffle accross',
That arguement tends to support my views Civvy, slow evacuation so why do we need outward opening doors???
You also said...."Some people would be happy with a room with 150 people in and inward opening doors. Some people may be happy if there's only 100 in the room, some people may be happy with 200 in the room. ..."
There should surely be a consensus of what is acceptable in each case!!!!!!!! How could one person be happy with 100 yet another accept 200 in exactly the same circumstances??? Would that not tend to suggest that one was more competent than the other??
All I have been saying is that there is a need to justify what you are asking for and understand why the guides make certain general recommendations. That justification should not be based on assumptions and matters of opinion.
I personally have teaching fire safety since 1999 and this issue of inward opening doors is not new. There will of course be times when they are needed, but that is generally when large amounts of people are likely to arrive at the exit at the same time. 50-60 is a good benchmark, that is all.
Nothing really has changed, the old home office guides gave similar recommendations yet you will see many rooms occupied by more than 50 people with inward opening doors. Many such buildings have fire certificates.
Why?? because some inspecting officers did receive appropriate training and were happy using professional judgement and common sense.
It appears that many brigades are reducing the training given at a time when the type and number of premises to be inspected has risen.
That is why, in my opinion, many posters on here do not feel comfortable moving away from guides.
All the new guides constantly make the point that if in doubt, consult a competent person that person will be on occassions an inspecting officer from a FRS. Some are very very good...some are not.
-
Cor Blimey are we still going round in circles over this one?
Phil one important thing you appear to overlook is that many of the premises you mention that do have inward opening doors have actually never been critically assessed either by the responsible person or the enforcement authorities.
Even many of those that did have fire certificates and had inward opening doors it was very rarely justified in the rigid proforma of the fire certificate so impossible to prove whether it was by accident or design.
I agree 100% that provided a proper assessment is made, logic is followed and reasoning recorded, then inward opening doors are fine in many situations.
But where would we be if not for the guidance? We would end up having to make a seperate case for every exit door in every building rather than just spotting the exceptions and considering those cases on their merits.
-
That arguement tends to support my views Civvy, slow evacuation so why do we need outward opening doors???
You also said...."Some people would be happy with a room with 150 people in and inward opening doors. Some people may be happy if there's only 100 in the room, some people may be happy with 200 in the room. ..."
There should surely be a consensus of what is acceptable in each case!!!!!!!! How could one person be happy with 100 yet another accept 200 in exactly the same circumstances??? Would that not tend to suggest that one was more competent than the other??
My argument is simply trying to prove that unless we somehow arrive at an exact figure then it is going to be down to opinion. A considered opinion, yes, but an opinion still the same, and in being such people will disagree.
-
Assuming this building has suitable TD's etc etc this scenario could exist in a new build lecture theatre constructed to Approved Document B 2006. ADB says no more than 60 persons for an inward opening door on an escape route. Four exits with one discounted, leaves three available exits, therefore maximum occupancy would be 180 persons.
Obviously without seeing all the details there is no way of giving a definitive answer, but I am with Phil B on this one, the response from the crowd appears a bit onerous.
-
I didn't think it worked like that. I thought that to work strictly to ADB then all inward opening doors would probably be discounted from MOE if more than 60 people are likely to be in the room.
-
Can't say I would have seen it that way-if a hall had say 3 x 200 exit capacity doors and one inward opening door, I would have counted the exit capacity of 2x200 plus 60, or if it had 4 inward opening doors then 3x60 (all assuming TD and location of doors ok)Maybe I got it wrong, but my understanding of ADB seems to suggest that it is no more than 60 using the inward opening door, as opposed to the room capacity.
-
If that is the way to do it then this whole thread is a waste of valuable internet space.
:)
(I shall await the obvious replies to this one...)
-
Kurnal the certificate process was not as ridged as you suggest there was some flexibility and I agree with Phil. I am also with you Pip.
-
I must admit to having worked your way too Civvy. Over 60 meant all room exit doors opened outward - unless there was a good and defensible reason to the contrary.
-
If that is the way to do it then this whole thread is a waste of valuable internet space.
:)
(I shall await the obvious replies to this one...)
Not a waste at all Civvy the last few posts have been very entertaining. I promise not to go on anymore after this one but I really think the last few posts reinforce my arguement that you cannot have black and white rules, there needs to be an understanding of the general principles of fire safety and then an assessment of each situation taking everything into account. Guides can very useful, but no guide has all the answers.
-
Well I am not going to argue that you can except limitless inward opening doors, just that I had not seen/heard the restriction of having one inward opening door restricting the exit capacity to 60,regardless of the numbers of other outward opening doors,I do not understand the reasoning behind that.The 'old' yellow guide for places of entertainment did limit a space with a single (outward) opening door to 50 in the smaller halls, and current ADB my understanding of '6.14' -'the door of any doorway or exit should,if reasonably practical,be hung to open in the direction of escape,and should always do so if the number of persons that might be expected to use the door at the time of the fire is more than 60' applies to the door,not the space.A room that had a single inward opening and another outward opening door would still be restricted to 60,because you would still discount the outward opening one for fire(and Iam sure there must be an argument whether that is logical!)-assuming floor space/td/distribution factors ok.But after that surely you must take into account any other exits.How could you have a large hall with a floor capacity of say 1000, 5 double outward opening doors of 300,one single inward opening door, and say they can only have a capacity of 60?I find it difficult to believe that is what you mean so something has been lost in translation!
-
I really think the last few posts reinforce my arguement that you cannot have black and white rules, there needs to be an understanding of the general principles of fire safety and then an assessment of each situation taking everything into account. Guides can very useful, but no guide has all the answers.
I do actually agree with you on most points PhilB and I am all for relaxing the guides where possible. I do think what this thread brings up is that in general the inspecting officers will err on the side of caution as a Fire Authority does not want to be on record as saying "We think this is safe" as they do not want to take responsiblity for such decisions due to potential litigation etc.
How could you have a large hall with a floor capacity of say 1000, 5 double outward opening doors of 300,one single inward opening door, and say they can only have a capacity of 60?I find it difficult to believe that is what you mean so something has been lost in translation!
I would have thought that the inward opening door would simply be removed from the MOE. i.e. Not marked up as an exit, giving you full 1000 occupancy still.
-
I really think the last few posts reinforce my arguement that you cannot have black and white rules, there needs to be an understanding of the general principles of fire safety and then an assessment of each situation taking everything into account. Guides can very useful, but no guide has all the answers.
I do actually agree with you on most points PhilB and I am all for relaxing the guides where possible. I do think what this thread brings up is that in general the inspecting officers will err on the side of caution as a Fire Authority does not want to be on record as saying "We think this is safe" as they do not want to take responsiblity for such decisions due to potential litigation etc.
How could you have a large hall with a floor capacity of say 1000, 5 double outward opening doors of 300,one single inward opening door, and say they can only have a capacity of 60?I find it difficult to believe that is what you mean so something has been lost in translation!
I would have thought that the inward opening door would simply be removed from the MOE. i.e. Not marked up as an exit, giving you full 1000 occupancy still.
yes of course, you would not need to include that door because there is more than enough capacity, but that was not the point.try this one then-there are 3 outward opening doors of 300 exit capacity each ,one inward(60) and a floor capacity of 660-would you reduce the capacity to 60?
-
No. I would ignore the inward opening door. I would say that capacity would be 600 and suggest that if they wanted full capacity then they need the inward door propped open to achieve this.
-
I didn't think it worked like that. I thought that to work strictly to ADB then all inward opening doors would probably be discounted from MOE if more than 60 people are likely to be in the room.
I dont think that is what ADB says-see my earlier quote.
Also, on what basis would you discount the inward opening door-it has already had a exit capacity 'restriction' put on it because it is inward opening.
-
On the basis of an inward opening door is unsuitable on the means of escape if more than 60 occupants are in the room. OR would that be 'if more than 60 people are likely to use it'?
I will admit, I could be totally wrong here, it is just the way I have always thought of it and stand to be corrected.
In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.
FWIW, I really joined this forum to try and benefit from the amount of experience around here, so feel free to "educate" me. I am sure in 10 years time I will still be learning. :)
-
.
In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.
:)
Just to throw another spanner in the works Civvy, what if the inward opening door is the door tha most of the occupants used to enter the room???? Oooh bloomin flippin eck I've opened up a can of worms here...my sincere apologies to everyone!
-
On the basis of an inward opening door is unsuitable on the means of escape if more than 60 occupants are in the room. OR would that be 'if more than 60 people are likely to use it'?
I will admit, I could be totally wrong here, it is just the way I have always thought of it and stand to be corrected.
In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.
FWIW, I really joined this forum to try and benefit from the amount of experience around here, so feel free to "educate" me. I am sure in 10 years time I will still be learning. :)
'On the basis of an inward opening door is unsuitable on the means of escape if more than 60 occupants are in the room.'-if it was the only door then yes, but if there are other doors then not necerssarily
'In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.'-yes a valid point and not to be totally discounted,however, if that logic was applied then all exit doors to each room/hall would have to be the same width-and that is not suggested in any of the guides-infact the point that the 'widest' should be discounted for fire implies that there can be narrower exits.The method of calculating exit capacity assumes that people will use all the exits evenly-which of course is debateble!
I think whether you count an inward openable door can vary from circumstance, a hall etc could be a good reason to site not to because of a possible 'crush' scenario, but possible different in an office.
I would not say that your views were necerssarily wrong-I wanted to understand your reasoning behind them-for the exact same reasons you read and contibute to this forum-to understand different views and reasoning.When I was a new FSO I was under the wing of 3 long serving FS station officers and two even longer in the tooth civvy FSO's-and if asked them a question they would all purposely put forward a slightly different view-just to show me there wasn't always just one right or wrong answer!I then had to make up my own mind on what might be the 'answer'-but sure as eggs were eggs it ,at best was only going to be the same as one of their views!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Evacuation shouldnt just be a free for all. We need some management or stewardship to make sure people are directed where to go and which exit to use in these circumstances.
-
Just to throw another spanner in the works Civvy, what if the inward opening door is the door tha most of the occupants used to enter the room???? Oooh bloomin flippin eck I've opened up a can of worms here...my sincere apologies to everyone!
Clearly the whole building needs to be sprinklered.
Happy now?
-
Alternatively:
Peg the door open
or
Inform the occupants of the more suitable exits
or
Steward the door
or
Small lobby around the door, peg to door open and have an outward opening door to the lobby as in pubs
or
Walk away and tell the person it is their duty to comply etc and they can ring a consultant to sort it out for them for a price
or
Run away and deny ever being there
or
Log on to Firenet and ask for a multitude of opinions
There are inherent problems with all of these. Especially the Firenet one.
-
Evacuation shouldnt just be a free for all. We need some management or stewardship to make sure people are directed where to go and which exit to use in these circumstances.
Yes-good point!
-
Just to throw another spanner in the works Civvy, what if the inward opening door is the door tha most of the occupants used to enter the room???? Oooh bloomin flippin eck I've opened up a can of worms here...my sincere apologies to everyone!
Clearly the whole building needs to be sprinklered.
Happy now?
no-property or life ,or both,fast or slow response?:-)
-
no-property or life ,or both,fast or slow response?:-)
Both obviously. Fast and slow. And some medium, "just in case".
-
Here's a quote from the old BB7:
'All doors across escape routes (except from rooms or spaces having less than 60 occupants, calculated according to the notes to Table 1) should open in the direction of escape or swing both ways.
At least I knew where I was in schools in those days!
-
Yes Ken but of course schools have their own special considerations ....not sure about swinging both ways though is that allowed in schools these days??????
-
Swinging both ways? Allowed? In these days of equality and diversity it is almost preferred!!
-
I believe the issue would be slightly different in schools, because you have the potential for the escape to be as a group, with the group being lead by the teacher. Therefore you would potentially end up with a class/group being lead to a single door, you also have the fact that in a school situation we are dealing with minors as opposed to adults.
Believe me when I say I am not an advocate of multiple inward opening doors in all situations, and would assess each situation on its merits, but as a professional I have to use national guidance as a start point/benchmark, and as far as I can see it suggests this to be acceptable.
If you had a room with four inward opening doors, would you really limit the occupancy to 60 persons? surely the risk is per door and common sense says 150 people will not move towards a single door.
-
Unfortunately the common sense that applies when you are sitting behind a desk looking at a proposal rarely bears any resemblance to the common sense that applies when people are trying to escape from an emergency. A large number deaths in theatres, night clubs and schools testifies to this.
-
Yes Mike but this was not one of those types of buildings, it was a lecture theatre, entirely different scenario.
-
Sprinkler it.
-
and swing both ways...don't forget that!!!
-
Swinging in the rain?
-
Thanks again guys for all the advice and views, I've thorougly enjoyed reading it all and have learnt a lot!
Thought you may be interested in the outcome...My initial view hasn't changed, I've asked for the doors to be changed around on the basis that:
Its fairly cheap (reasonably practicable) and I couldn't think of a good reason not to, and the possiblity of a crush seemed a fairly good reason to do it!
I can't rely on stewards being present whenever the theatre is in use.
The uni is a veritable laberynth. The most likely place for any fire to start is not in the lecture theatre itself, but in other locations around. Fire in any one of these could potentially deny access to one of these doors, meaning a full house heading for maybe three doors. People being people, they will generally head for the door through which they came, which may mean they all head for one door.Therefore my (albeit inexpereinced logic) tells me they all need to open outwards.
Thanks again for all the input!
-
Good - well done
-
PS,
You have the details for the scheme, and as you say you are the person dealing with the scheme, so it should be a situation you are comfortable with, but regarding your logic on the "door that people entered through" consider these scenarios.
Would you take the same approach with stairs, if a building had 3 escape stairs and only one was used for access, whilst the other 2 were dedicated escape stairs, would you require the access stair to be enlarged because more people would head for that stair on the same principle.
Or
If the doors do open in the direction of escape, could you not then get the situation where 150 people may head for the door through which they came, which may only be 800mm wide. Do you now look for that door to be widened, on the assumption that it is now not suitable.
I do not necessarily agree or understand the logic behind some items included in standard guidance, but this is national guidance and is therefore assumed to be a good starting point, what is the point of this guidance if we are going to apply our own extra requirements to make us feel comfortable.
I am not questioning your decision for the doors to be altered, but just trying to ensure you consider all factors when making that decision. The fact that you have asked the question, searched out and shown interest in others opinions is a positive step!!
-
Nobody likes to join a queue!
-
.......................but this is national guidance and is therefore assumed to be a good starting point, what is the point of this guidance if we are going to apply our own extra requirements to make us feel comfortable.
That's a big assumption, when you look into the guides in detail they are full of errors and contain many dodgy diagrams....in my humble opinion of course.