FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Davash on November 07, 2008, 05:29:11 PM
-
Hi,
can anyone give me some advice on upgrading original doors in a two storey plus a basement Georgian building (listed building) used by a firm of solicitors. There is a single central staircase forming the escape route to downstairs exits with office doors that lead onto this. The doors have been treated on the risk side using two coats of intumescent paint (30 min fire resistance). Combined intumescent & cold smoke seals are fitted in the centre of the door leaf. A single chain perco door closer (concealed) is fitted on each door. The doors themselves are heavy construction but are panelled. Here are some of the problems:
1. Some doors have a slight twist in them which prevents them coming up on the door stop in parts of the frame.
2. The gap around the door leaf in some is greater than 4mm even with intumescent seals fitted. Joiner says 4mm or less is difficult to achieve.
3. Door closers work from most angles but if door is ajar say six inches, it does not close fully.
New type fire doors cannot be fitted as the building is listed. The building has a new fire detector and manual fire alarm installed to B.S 5839.
Has anyone had any experience of dealing with the above problems and how the Fire brigade may view the situation?
Davash
-
Hi,
can anyone give me some advice on upgrading original doors in a two storey plus a basement Georgian building (listed building) used by a firm of solicitors. There is a single central staircase forming the escape route to downstairs exits with office doors that lead onto this. The doors have been treated on the risk side using two coats of intumescent paint (30 min fire resistance). Combined intumescent & cold smoke seals are fitted in the centre of the door leaf. A single chain perco door closer (concealed) is fitted on each door. The doors themselves are heavy construction but are panelled. Here are some of the problems:
1. Some doors have a slight twist in them which prevents them coming up on the door stop in parts of the frame.
2. The gap around the door leaf in some is greater than 4mm even with intumescent seals fitted. Joiner says 4mm or less is difficult to achieve.
3. Door closers work from most angles but if door is ajar say six inches, it does not close fully.
New type fire doors cannot be fitted as the building is listed. The building has a new fire detector and manual fire alarm installed to B.S 5839.
Has anyone had any experience of dealing with the above problems and how the Fire brigade may view the situation?
Davash
Hi Davash
1. Door stops are not that critical if there are intumescent strips and smoke seals fitted.
2. Problem here unless you can build up the door jam to make up for the gap thus leaving the door alone. Where are the gaps?
3. Percos are not usually accepted for fire doors. Percomatics are better.
You might find that Health & Safety matters may have an influence on the listed status. You may have to speak to Heritage on this.
You could also find that Heritage might accept replicas of existing doors in the interest of fire safety.
-
Hi Nearlythere,
Gap is between the door edges and door frame. Excuse my ignorance, what is a Percomatic?
Daveash
-
Hi Nearlythere,
Gap is between the door edges and door frame. Excuse my ignorance, what is a Percomatic?
Daveash
A single perko is just a simple self closer to close a simple door.
Try this for an explanation of a perkomatic (with a K it seems, I always thought it was with a C ) rather than me waffling on.
http://www.handles4doors.co.uk/Ironmongery-Door-Fittings/Concealed-Door-Closers/sc642.aspx
-
I would have thought that as the premises has early warning and is only a small building the doors are not really that much of an issue. They will still hold back fire and smoke to a degree and people will be able to leave the building in the event an evacuation is needed. You could change the single perko to a double perko to give more leverage to the door and if allowed build up the frame stop to cover the gaps.
-
What is the maximum travel distance to the main entrance?
-
Thanks for that nearlythere, i've had a browse at the perkomatic.
Jokar,
I would think the same as you, but do you think that an inspecting officer might take the same view?
-
Nearlythere,
Travel distance is within the guidelines for normal fire risk premises.
-
Nearlythere,
Travel distance is within the guidelines for normal fire risk premises.
If you have AFD, substantial doors which are properly self closing at least, and travel distance is normal for single escape you could get away with the doors as they are.
-
Solicitors offices tend to be fairly low risk premises from the point of view of the activities that go on there and the number of persons present, and the processes that are carried out.
On the other hand my experience is that solicitors offices are amongst the worst for general compliance matters- electrical and pat testing, old wiring with huge use of adaptors and extension leads and some I have worked for have had pretty poor standards of practice and awareness- cooking, portable heaters, door wedges, training, building maintenence (eg basement ceilings) housekeeping in the basement etc. You may wisk to consider the loss of files and business continuity.
Apart from the above, for life safety an occupied office is generally at the lower end of the scale of risk and I personally would feel easy about relaxing standards where a fire will be detected and evacuation complete in the early stages of a fire.
Where there is a risk that a fire is likely, or may not be detected in its early stages or may develop and grow rapidly or could affect the means of escape in a critical area (besement ceiling beneath foot of stairs? ) I would apply the guidance standards, but otherwise I would feel easy about traditional doors of reasonable construction even without upgrade and provided they do shut I may not worry about the perkos not being fire rated. Smoke seals - if its a traditional building with fairly high ceilings and the rooms are occupied and there is full detection throughout again I would probably be ok without them.
Hope this drivel is some help.
-
If the warning and detection gives a benefit for being in place ie a cat M system would normally suffice, then it could act as a compensatory feature for the doors particularly as they have had some upgrading and it is a listed building. Who knows whether an IO will accept it they vary so much. However, it is the business FRA and within that if the details are identified and the outcomes explicit then they should accept it.
-
On the other hand my experience is that solicitors offices are amongst the worst for general compliance matters- electrical and pat testing, old wiring with huge use of adaptors and extension leads and some I have worked for have had pretty poor standards of practice and awareness- cooking, portable heaters, door wedges, training, building maintenence (eg basement ceilings) housekeeping in the basement etc. You may wisk to consider the loss of files and business continuity.
I must agree with you there Kurnal. You missed out file management from your list, which apparently isn't a problem if you have a long single staircase in which to store your paperwork! There seems to be an arrogant attitude displayed by many in the legal profession toward fire safety, despite perhaps being in the best position of knowing the potential legal pitfalls of not complying.
They are not alone. My top 3 winners of Most Arrogant Resp Person are: Doctors, Solicitors, Headmasters and Scots*
* (only joking!!!)
-
Kurnal you are spot on with your assumptions regarding solicitor offices, most of the issues you mentioned, i have tried to address, particularly regarding the ceilings & understairs in the basement (they have now got smoke detectors in there and moved most of the paper files)
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody for their input. This truly is a professional forum and is invaluable as a source for good no nonsense advice.
-
Have a look at this companies website. Was at a brigade fire safety seminar the other day and these were one of the speakers. I was aware of their products but they have seemed to have increased their range recently. They have just brought out a hinge that doubles up as a S/C that may over come one of your problems. Obviously it's not a rising butt hinge.
http://www.envirograf.com/
-
Twistedfirestopper,
Thanks for that info, will have a good look at their website.
Davash
-
Have a look at this companies website. Was at a brigade fire safety seminar the other day and these were one of the speakers. I was aware of their products but they have seemed to have increased their range recently. They have just brought out a hinge that doubles up as a S/C that may over come one of your problems. Obviously it's not a rising butt hinge.
http://www.envirograf.com/
Looks like one that would take your heels off if you didn't get through the door quickly enough.
-
Well that qustion was raised. Apparently it replicates any speed that an over head SC can do, also how tight it shuts on the frame can be regulated as well. But i have yet to see one in action yet!
-
If the warning and detection gives a benefit for being in place ie a cat M system would normally suffice, then it could act as a compensatory feature for the doors
Just to be awkward:
If a cat M is truly suitable then you are talking about somewhere where it is expected that some person will see a fire and raise the alarm. There will be no unoccupied rooms that can present a risk to the escape route. If this is the case, then what is the benefit of detection?
-
CivvyFSO,
Some rooms may be unoccupied for storage purposes including the basement areas, so detection would be prudent.
Davash
-
English Heritage have a guidance note on this exact topic - downloadable from:
http://fred.english-heritage.org.uk/project.asp?pkey=59&visitorCategory=Student&keyword=Compartmentation%7C&word=
-
CivvyFSO,
Some rooms may be unoccupied for storage purposes including the basement areas, so detection would be prudent.
Davash
Which is still something that is necessary then, not something that can be classed as a compensatory feature?
-
Davash - if you want some help/advice about upgrading historic doors, send me an e-mail and I'll try and give you what help I can. However, your colleagues seem to think that you can do a risk assessment which will achieve compliance without interfering with the doors so if you or they are happy to put a name to this then obviously that's the best way to go.
-
Please see the recent report of CLG on an Article 36 determination at:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/heritagehotel
Very relevant to discussion topic
-
Very interesting determination. And very worrying for the future of fire risk assessment when the enforcing authority uses language like this:
"The corridors must be protected from the effects of a fire in a bedroom, in order to allow persons to escape in order for Article 14 (2) (b) to be satisfied. The guidance requires every corridor which serves part of the means of escape to be protected routes with 30 minutes of fire resistance. "
The guidance requires. Hmmm.
-
Very interesting determination. And very worrying for the future of fire risk assessment when the enforcing authority uses language like this:
"The corridors must be protected from the effects of a fire in a bedroom, in order to allow persons to escape in order for Article 14 (2) (b) to be satisfied. The guidance requires every corridor which serves part of the means of escape to be protected routes with 30 minutes of fire resistance. "
The guidance requires. Hmmm.
Diluting the Risk Assessment process and removing the common sense approach I feel.
Mind you "The corridors must be protected from the effects of a fire in a bedroom, in order to allow persons to escape...." does not mean fire doors. I think we are seeing the effects of inexperience in Fire Safety Depts where the codes are the only point of reference.
-
Regardless of the possibility of "inexperience" of the FS department concerned, do not the findings of the determination support their view?
-
Regardless of the possibility of "inexperience" of the FS department concerned, does not the findings of the determination support their view?
Yes. But determinations invariably do. It takes a lot of research to find a case where the S of State found in favour of the appellant.
Sir Ken has played a clever role here. The determination is clearly tied to the individual circumstances of the case and nobody can disagree with his summary. It is easy to say in this specific case that to fit seals and upgrade existing doors would be fairly straightforward and undoubtedly would reduce the level of risk - so therefore the argument of ALARP wins the day.
The appellant has used most of the arguments I would have used in analysing strengths and weaknesses of the case against the benchmark standard of the guidance. Perhaps more could have been made of the alleged high ceilings and fire loading - a simple CFD simulation may have helped to win the case.
Main lesson learned- once again-maybe that if you are convinced you are right, negotiation with the enforcing brigade is the only way to succeed in winning your point because once it goes to the the S of State you have blown any chance of winning your argument?.
-
I am aware that English Heritage are aware of this recent and first determination of an appeal regarding a heritage building and are trying to elicit further information regarding the technical advice offered to the CLG.
-
Is it being missed that the determination says that the doors would have given only about 10 minutes fire resistance and that there were gaps because of ill fit through which smoke would pass? This is not a case of old but well fitting BS 459-3 doors needing upgraded from 20 minutes to 30 minutes from the sound of it.
-
You make a very good point Colin. Sometimes we can fail to spot the wood for the trees.
There are many red herrings in the account of the determination and one of the biggest is this business of 10 minutes, half an hour etc. We all tend to treat the BS476 as a holy grail but of course it is a test against a standard fire under controlled conditions in a laboratory.
Any fire in real life will have totally different temperature / heat flux/time characteristics and the only reference to time that is relevant is whether tenable conditions will be maintained in the corridor for long enough for persons to escape, allowing a safety margin for slow response, alcohol etc. And as you say the fit of the door is critical to this- and of course whether the door will be open or closed.
Personally I should have taken a more considered view of the evidence presented, but I must admit the red mist starts to come down when people start using words like guidance and requirements in the same sentence.
I still stand by my view that determination is a lost cause though. Right or wrong the S of State cannot find in favour of the appellant. To do so is likely to undermine the enforcing authority, bring about civil claims and a need for review of guidance - all calls on the public purse and so easily avoidable through expedient handling of political authority.
-
Even determinations are challengable but they may by some miracle have come to the right decision for badly expressed reasons. But then if they could express themsleves properly why would they work for the CLG when there are lots of proper jobs out there.
-
Straightforward application of what usually results in these cases - ACOPs / National Standards etc provide the 'benchmark' level of acceptable safety and the girls & boys in the funny wigs expect the punters to explain how they've taken this into account. No absolute requirement to follow the standards, of course, but the key is that we should be prepared to show how an equivalent level of safety has been achieved, by other means. Not "code hugging" but "code comparing".
Please see the recent report of CLG on an Article 36 determination at:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/heritagehotel
Very relevant to discussion topic
-
I suggest you look at Sealmaster, of Cambridgshire, they are approved by English Heritage and have products specifically designed for the upgrading of fire doors, in particular the door panels within listed buildings.
Hope helps