FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: StuartH on September 04, 2009, 06:51:24 PM
-
Does anyone know Surrey's policy on the use of fire door hold open devices. I did a FRA earlier this week at a low to normal risk two storey office building in which Dorguard's are being used to hold open fire doors fitted to a single protected staircase. Although I know that it is almost certain that Surrey F&RS would not allow dorguards to be used to hold open fire doors provided to protect a single protected starcase, does anyone know if they have a policy on the use of magnetic hold open devices connected to the fire alarm system in these circumstances. The building is fitted with a L3 Fire Alarm system. I ask as I have heard of very differing policies within Fire and Rescue Services throughout the UK. I am aware of one local authority fire service permitting the use of dorguards for single protected staircases just as long as there is no sleeping risk.
I could telephone Surrey FRS on Monday for the customer, but am keen to try and get the report written up this weekend.
-
I wouldn't worry about any policy that Surrey FRS may or may not have. You're the one that's inspected the whole building, you've seen and contemplated the risks and now you're the most able person to make a decision on whether or not these devices can be safely used.
I think it would put Surrey FRS in a potentially difficult position if they did have a policy of not accepting these devices. I think the manufacturers of the devices might have issue with them. There is no doubt that the devices can be used perfectly safely, many will argue that the building is safer if they are fitted than if they are not. So, how can Surrey have a policy of not accepting them? It would be asking for trouble.
In making your judgement, you should think about the locations of smoke detectors near the device, how often the occupants close the door (at night for example?), how often the device is tested and serviced, what systems are in place for rectifying faults, signage on the door, the possibility of the door becoming warped, etc. If everything is ticketty-boo then the FRS cannot argue against them.
Recommend what you feel is safest.
Stu
-
In answer to Phoenix' point the Surrey position MAY be along the lines of the guidance in BS7273 part 4. So they could legitimately have a policy with regard to say the use of category 3 devices in a single staircase building and expect you to justify how, in the case in point, your variation provides an equivalent degree of safety.
-
CACFO released a document in March 03 which included the use of Dorgards. Because of the Order not quite sure if it is still CFOA policy. Document in pdf so unable to cut and paste specific section or insert link, as I am too old to do such high tech things, but there is reference to single stairway situations. Can send anyone full doc on request.
-
I'd be grateful if you could email me the document. You should be able to email me directly through the forum.
-
In answer to Phoenix' point the Surrey position MAY be along the lines of the guidance in BS7273 part 4. So they could legitimately have a policy with regard to say the use of category 3 devices in a single staircase building and expect you to justify how, in the case in point, your variation provides an equivalent degree of safety.
I agree absolutely, kurnal, that if such devices are fitted then they should comply with the appropriate standard. I'm sure that you, like me, have seen rather ad hoc interpretation of the principles in your time.
Stu
-
Yes for my part I would rather see a cat 3 dorgard on a single staircase than a wedge and in my risk assessments have from time to time recommended this as a short term measure with a longer term objective of installing a cat 1 device. (I can see Colin T raising his eyebrows once again as I type)
-
I have seen some awful examples of these devices being used.
one such example; 2 floors of 25m dead end corridors with single staircase at one end. virtually all rooms fire-doors to each corridor, and the fire-doors to the staircase were held open with an acoustic hold open device.
None had been maintained, ever!!! So when i arrived, virtually all of them didn't work. I was absolutely gobsmacked to see that staff were also wedging their devices to make it hold the door open, or, stuck a wedge in right next to it.
So I asked staff what they were. Not one of them could tell me. Here lies the problem in my opinion. Management.
Kurnal, i agree, a short term solution in this circumstance could be acceptable. part of that rationale is because it would eliminate some management and maintenance concerns. But not in the long term. Apart from compliance with BS7273 part 4. There are sometimes too many variables, in my opinion. Poor management, change of occupancy, staff, or use for example.
-
To reinforce the points made above, at the premises I assessed, the RP confirmed that the Dorguards have been in position for approximately several years and have never worked. I advised strongly that the dorguards be disabled by removing the batteries.
Turns out that the devices were in position when the RP took over and he never know how they were supposed to work. He said that he just changed the batteries in each device as when the batteries went flat.
The RP did also confirm that no hold open device would result in staff wedging fire doors open due the confined nature of the offices located off the staircase. A sensible alternative, in my opinion, would be to you use electro magnetic hold open devices fitted to the fire alarm. Although not an ideal solution, its better than having fire doors wedged open. I am trying to avoid offering this as a realistic solution, only for the local FRS to come in and take issue with the situation.
I would welcome comments from consultants / fire service officers who have been in a similiar situation.
-
What is the standard of the fire alarm system and what level of detection is provided?
-
Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.
-
It would appear absolutely reasonable in an office premises with an L3 alarm system and a single staircase to use magnetic hold open devices. Dorgards could be iffy as they are category C of BS7273 part 4 but magnets to category 1 should be fine. I think in the circumstances you should ask for a second opinion from the fire officers gaffer (the nice way) or call their bluff. "This is my risk assessment and this is what we are doing if you dont like it serve a notice and we will appeal and when we win we will recover our costs from you".
-
Thank you, I will try and get and indication from Surrey FRS on Monday. I went through the premises detailed records and it appears that there is nothing to confirm that the premises have been inspected by Surrey FRS since the dorguards where installed, despite the premises previously being certificated.
-
Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.
If it accepted an L3 system as compensation for lobby protection to a single stairway then Dorgards should be no problem.
-
Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.
If it accepted an L3 system as compensation for lobby protection to a single stairway then Dorgards should be no problem.
Nearly,
Whilst I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it should be made clear that it is universally accepted practice in this sort of building to accept smoke detection in rooms adjoining the escape route in lieu of lobbies.
Stu
-
Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.
If it accepted an L3 system as compensation for lobby protection to a single stairway then Dorgards should be no problem.
Nearly,
Whilst I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it should be made clear that it is universally accepted practice in this sort of building to accept smoke detection in rooms adjoining the escape route in lieu of lobbies.
Stu
Stu
How does a detection system prevent smoke entering a stairway enclosure?
-
Actually, thinking about it, you don't need lobbies on this building anyway!
Stu
-
Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.
If it accepted an L3 system as compensation for lobby protection to a single stairway then Dorgards should be no problem.
Nearly,
Whilst I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it should be made clear that it is universally accepted practice in this sort of building to accept smoke detection in rooms adjoining the escape route in lieu of lobbies.
Stu
Stu
How does a detection system prevent smoke entering a stairway enclosure?
It doesn't - it gives people time.
Stu
-
Stu, Are you answering your own questions again? I think Kurnals point is a good one. If you do not have a hold open device, what will the occupier resort to doing, fire extinguisher wedge! The main issue regarding a single stair is that you cannot turn your back and walk away, so by making up the stair allows more time in the building before your only MOE is compromised. Remember it is only small buildings that are supposed to have single stairs (with added requirements) 'post war building studies'. If all ocuupants are familiar, alert, trained and disciplined what would be the scenario of a fire, all would exit before the stair become lost, unless you have a high risk fire that will develop quickly so you may need more than one stair. However magnetic hold opens linked to the alarm would be first chioce but accoustic hold opens would be next. I am aware of CFOA document and BS but we are in the risk appropriate arena utilising best practice silutions.
-
it should be made clear that it is universally accepted practice in this sort of building to accept smoke detection in rooms adjoining the escape route in lieu of lobbies.
Universally accepted? I would challenge this practice every time.
AFD and lobbies provide completely different functions. Smoke detection does not keep smoke out of the escape route and it does not offer any further protection in the event of one of the fire doors not performing its function. If you don't want to provide a lobby then pressurise the stair, it is the only thing that does the same job, so it is the only suitable replacement.
If it was a suitable replacement then ADB should describe it as so instead of only listing lobbies or pressurisation as the choices.
"It buys time" is not a reasonable argument either. If no detection was required, then that should surely only be because any fire was going to be picked up at an early stage by the occupants. This scenario should lead to the fire being picked up quicker than an L3 system. If there are areas that a fire can break out unnoticed and prejudice the escape route, then they warrant detection anyway.
-
Safety and
Standards
AUTOMATIC DOOR RELEASE MECHANISMS / HOLD OPEN
DEVICES FOR SELF CLOSING FIRE DOORS
Approved & Issued by CACFOA's NFSC on 20 March 2003
Introduction
The following note is produced for the guidance of Fire Safety Officers charged with giving
advice on the suitability and use of automatic door release mechanisms. It aims to set
acceptable standards of safety and encourage consistency of enforcement, while at the same
time leaving scope for flexibility and the exercise of professional judgement in relation to
individual circumstances.
General Principles
Where self-closing fire doors cause serious restriction in the free movement of people within a
building, officers may need to consider proposals and applications to install and, where
appropriate, positively recommend the use of automatic door release mechanisms.
A site-specific risk assessment should normally be carried out and the following criteria
should be appropriately applied: -
1) The door release mechanism should conform to an appropriate standard
or be accredited as part of the European Construction Product Directive
(CPD).
2) All doors fitted with automatic releases should be actuated by an
appropriate automatic fire detection and alarm system. BS 5839 Parts 1 or 6
detail an acceptable standard.
3) If devices are fitted to fire doors protecting the means of escape then the
automatic detectors should be positioned in accordance with British Standard
5839 Part 1, for a Type L3 system as a minimum, i.e. suitable detectors on
the means of escape routes and in adjacent rooms opening onto those
routes. If the means of escape route is fire protected then either smoke or
heat detectors are considered suitable in the adjacent rooms, whilst if the
route is unprotected, only smoke detectors should be used.
4) The practice of using dedicated smoke detectors either side of corridor
doors that are to be held open by a door release mechanism should be
discontinued. This is because studies have found that smoke entering the
corridor from an adjacent room may not have sufficient buoyancy, movement
and directional flow to actuate the dedicated detector heads
5) All automatic door releases should be triggered by each or any of the
following: -
a) The detection of smoke by an automatic detection; or
b) the actuation of an alarm by a manual fire alarm call point;
or
c) failure of the fire warning system.
6) Each automatic door release should be provided with means of manual
operation from a position at the door (closing door by hand/foot is considered
suitable).
7) In sleeping risk premises each door fitted with an automatic door release
should be closed at a predetermined time each night and remain closed
throughout the sleeping hours. The method of achieving this may be either
automatic or manual, depending on the type of release mechanism installed,
but compliance with this will be a matter for the management regime of the
premises/workplace. Any remote or unsupervised release of self-closing fire
doors may injure occupants. The responsible person should only carry out
fire alarm tests and/or remotely release self-closing fire doors if arrangements
(so far as is reasonably practicable) are in place to safeguard the occupants
from injury, e.g. by a door striking an occupant.
8) The release mechanisms should be operated at least once each week to
ensure that: -
a) the mechanisms are working effectively, and
b) the doors are not warped and close effectively into their
frames
9 The release mechanisms should operate within 20 seconds of the fire
alarm operating.
10 Doors fitted with release mechanisms should be provided with appropriate
signage e.g. ‘Automatic Fire Door – Keep Clear ’.
11 The devices must be tested weekly, in association with the testing of the
fire alarm system, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions. A record should be kept of all testing and maintenance activities.
Doors fitted with such devices should be kept closed during periods when the
fire alarm system is isolated for maintenance purposes.
Self-Contained Release Devices (SCRD's)
SCRD's are not normally directly connected to a fire alarm system and it is important that
additional points are taken into account and/or considered when these types of devices are to
be installed. These points are set out below:
12 Acceptance depends upon the outcome of a site-specific risk assessment.
They should not normally be used on doors protecting single stairway
buildings or protecting other critical means of escape.
13 The fire alarm system should have a secondary power supply to a
standard as detailed in BS 5839: Parts 1 or 6.
14 The fire alarm audibility level at the position of any acoustically actuated
device must be sufficient to ensure that the mechanisms will release the door
upon the actuation of the fire alarm system.
15 The management of the premises/workplace should ensure that there are
procedures in place (either manual or automatic) to de-activate any or all of
the devices in the following circumstances: -
a) When there is a fault in the fire warning system
b) When the fire alarm system is isolated for any reason e.g.
maintenance
c) Any other circumstances when the sound of the fire alarm
will not trigger the device
16 Self-contained devices should have their batteries replaced at least every
12 months or when the low voltage-warning device sounds.
-
"Acceptance depends upon the outcome of a site-specific risk assessment"
This is coded CFOA speak for "some FRAs don't like them"
-
Civvy,
I want to build an office building with a ground floor and three floors above. Less than 11m to the top floor. I'm going to have up to 60 people on each floor. I only want to put in a single staircase (I'll make sure it and the final exit are sufficiently wide) and I will install an L3 alarm system. I'll enclose the stairs but I'm not giving them lobby protection because there isn't really space to do that. Do you have any objections?
Also I'm building a two storey office building and I'm only giving that a single enclosed stair and I'm not going to lobby it and I think I'll only put in a manual fire alarm system. I don't really trust this detection malarky. Any objections to that?
Hang it all, I think I'll build a third. I'll just make it a small two storey affair, rent it out as a shop, and I think I wont bother enclosing the stairs at all. It'll only be two rooms, one up one down, so I don't think I'll bother with an electronic alarm at all. Do you think this might be ok?
Stu
-
You need to consider how wise it will be to be building all those buildings in this financial climate!
Anyway;
Do you have any objections?
Nope. And you get a special pat on the back for keeping it under 11m.
Any objections to that?
Nope. Providing you can guarantee that there is always somebody on the ground floor to raise the alarm before the escape route could be affected.
Do you think this might be ok?
Possibly. Depends on travel distances, probably taking into account small premises guidance, and if a verbal warning is enough to be heard and understood throughout.
* Civvy puts ADB down and goes to bed. ;)
-
Hey Phoenix
What are you thinking of? This is a conservation area. You cant go building new buildings you have got to make the best of those you have, and refurbish them without altering their character but making them useable. The work will require Building Regulations approval though.
The existing multi storey office building has a total of six storeys due to a sloping site.
The two storey office building has a staircase in the centre of the building that descends into an inner room.
The shop with the open stair as you describe but the staircase discharges at the rear of the shop 7m from the only door.
New buildings are easy. As you know the challenges come with existing buildings which demand some creativity and flexibility to move them towards the benchmark standards.
-
Yes Kurnal. That is a completely different storey.
-
The existing multi storey office building has a total of six storeys due to a sloping site.
I shall utilise a helter skelter accessible from all rooms. Fun and functional.
The two storey office building has a staircase in the centre of the building that descends into an inner room.
The staircase also ascends to the heli-pad on the roof.
The shop with the open stair as you describe but the staircase discharges at the rear of the shop 7m from the only door.
That's more tricky.
Stu
-
Well Stu
You have excelled yourself this time, hofstaders law is just spot on, I intend to apply it whenever I have to price anything!!!! ;D ;) ;D
-
Sorry, this is totally off subject but, unfortunately, there is a monetary equivalent called Brown's Law that says,
It always costs more than you think it will cost, even when you take into account Brown's Law.
Because of that and because Civvy reminded me that we're in trying financial times, I'm not going to build my three buildings any more.
Stu
-
Phoenix relax
All you need to do is apply for one of those nice shiney EU urban regeneration grants and get your building sorted
Then simply employ an approved inspector to allow a "flexible" approach to fire safety in return for a modest fee! ;) ;)
Simples.
Just make sure your building isn't on Civvy's patch - he demands triple lobbies on all staircases!
-
the RP confirmed that the Dorguards have been in position for approximately several years and have never worked. I advised strongly that the dorguards be disabled by removing the batteries.
Turns out that the devices were in position when the RP took over and he never know how they were supposed to work. He said that he just changed the batteries in each device as when the batteries went flat.
The RP did also confirm that no hold open device would result in staff wedging fire doors open due the confined nature of the offices located off the staircase.
Strange one. How do you mean they haven't worked? If the batts have run flat and failed to safe (closing the doors) which has indicated to your client they need changing, presumably they are working?
With regards to legislation BS7273-4 is guidance for you but note it is just guidance, look at the risk. I would say that maybe as he has bought them why not just get them fixed? If you get them working they are acceptable on your risk assessment. The CACFOA doccument is now out of date but again it comes down to a risk assessment.
Maintain them and they will do the job. If you want a higher category (more fail safe options) Mags are an option or there is a Cat B and a Cat A device which are the next generation of Dorgard.