FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: cnewby on May 19, 2005, 12:46:27 PM
-
Wondering if anyone can direct me to a thread regarding the use of dorgard SCRD's, particularly around their use within an NHS setting as well as community homes.
-
http://www.dorgard.com/ As long as you have the audibility then they work. We have priced a number of sheltered accomodation for mags or closers and found these fitted next service (before I knew about them).If they don't work due to audibility then it's the fire alarm at fault and not the unit.
-
NHS Esates published an advice not on such units. The gist is that such units were deemed acceptable for some ancilliary uses, but not for the protection of escape routes or for the protection of compartmentation/sub-compartmentation used for progressive horizontal evacuation.
In many healthcare environments the audibility of alarm devices is reduced since they are intended to alert staff and not to unduly stress patients. In such circumstances it can be difficult to attain suitable alarm sound pressure levels to ensure the door release mechanism is activated.
-
These units may have a use in certain circumstances However as a general rule I would not recommend thier use as there is no fail safe ( I am aware of Mr. Todds dislike of this) in most cases magnitic hold open, and similar devices will fail therby closing the fire doors in the event of a failer of the fire alarm / detection system, thses devices do not as they require the sounder to set them off, where life is at risk stay away from them.
-
The Hospital Trusts on my patch fit them to doors that are not risk critical, but only after individual risk assessment, must be following Colin's guidance!
If Care homes in our area insist on wanting to fit them we ask them adopt a similar policy.
Given the current cost of dorguard type devices, magnetic hold open devices often compete if an L1 system is already installed.
Most of my colleagues have formed their own opinion on the effectiveness of the devices.
-
If you consider that we have upto 100 doors identified across hospital sites made up of many individual buildings: Do you think it's 'reasonably practicable' to fit hard wired magnetic hold opens to all given the cost and the current financial pressures on all NHS Trusts? I understand fully the financial implications of an event such as the Rosepark fire; however that doesn't make the decision any easier. It's also made more difficult when we have CSCI inspectors requesting the fitting of these devices to some of our registered community homes.
-
The latest Building(Scotland) Regulations 2004 techical handbook,details "as an alternative to self closing doors being fitted with hold open devices, an acoustically activated door release mechanism and floor plate complying with BS EN 1155;1997 may be installed on a risk assessment basis.An example of this could be in the case of residential care buildings or hospital where the residents rely on walking aids to move around the building.
However this type of hold open device is not suitable for use in the following circumstances where;
1 - the door is an emergency door, a protected door serving the only escape stair in the building(or the only escape stair servingpart of the building)or a protected door serving a fire fighting shaft:or
2 - a category M fire alarm system as defined in BS 5839;pt1 2002 is installed in the building;or
3 - the initial fire alarm warning signal is intended to alert staff only
-
Would the device need third party certification to BS EN 1155 one wonders?
-
Over the past few years, some of the areas I have worked in, such a device has been frowned upon by inspecting fire officers (GMC & Cheshire Area) and I have to say I agree to a point that these release systems can not be relied upon.
However in building types that have occupants who may be looking for an 'anchor point' to tie off to ( typical self closure device) then these are ideal as balancing the risk of someone finding an 'anchor point' and the door not closing when the alarm sounds, the risk of the aforementioned being more likely to happen would have to be considered.
Having said this I would n't consider using these in any other scenario myself??
-
They can also need careful siting to avoid obstruction (eg of trolleys) and physical damage to the unit or door.
-
Fire mag April 2005 has an interesting article on Dorgard, It indicates that late last year a court case recorded 2 deaths in a care home citing 4 breaches of care standards, and particularly deploring the illegal practice of "wedged open" bedrooms doors.
National Care Homes Association (NCHA) chief executive commented"these tragedies should focus our minds on care home owners legal responsibilities to ensure that their premises and procedures safegaurd their residents, in particular checking that fire doors including doors to residents rooms are not wedged open.
The article goes on to say that NCHA also endorses Dorgard, the company says that Dorgard offers care providers the easiest and most cost effective way of legally holding open fire doors into residents rooms safely, at any time of day or night.
-
Thanks Ricardo. Very useful.
-
Agree Ricardo,
But still has to be assessed as I believe they are not 100%, but in balance are better than nothing.
-
I thank everyone for their comments; however, if you have tested the audibility levels, have good compartmentation with a fully automated alarm system and risk assessment can someone explain why there is such a level of discomfort in using such devices? Many people, on other websites also, have expressed views on Dorgard, but don't back up their opinions with any reasoning. If we can understand the reasoning then it may make it easier to decide upon their appropriateness.
-
I think one of the main issues for me is that it is second best to a 5839 linked system. Obviously there are cost implications with installing a linked system, but you can not get away from the fact that these closures are only as good as the systems and safety culture within the premises, leaving them wide open to human factors, such as poor / no testing being carried out, batteries not being changed on a regular basis.
I have also known instances where they have been prone to false release and as a consequence doors have been wedged open.
I guess what I am trying to say is that you can assess all you like and make recomendations, however they are open to problems that are difficult to manage.
On the other hand if you are completley sure that the above factors can be managed and you have carried out sufficient testing and assessment of the placement of the dorgards, then, as I say, in balance they are not all bad.
-
The dorgard has been approved by most fire authorities.
In the care home situation you should be aware that the unit self tests every 7 days and releases the door. An audible warning is given but in the case of the elederly the risk of a door closing and hitting a service user should be assessed. This has happened and resulted in a death (not with a Dorgard unit)
-
Hi Guys lets try and out the record staight with Dorgard as I am reading the various replies and some are off the mark a bit with regard to the product. I think I can boil the guidance down to two particular notes, one is a Guidance document brought out some time ago by CFOA which I believe all Brigades sign up to. Their is also an NHS Estates note that was issued around 12 months ago which is very similar to the CFOA Guidance. In Scotland the new Building Regs. and Standards permit the use of devices such as Dorgard but as usual with Scotland you need to have a Building Warrant (this is not just for Dorgard but for any change of anything in a building with a few deemed to satisfy exceptions) but although SHTM 84 recommends the use of swing free devices this is only GUIDANCE and the Building Regulations in Scotland are the law and as it stands at the moment if a Warrant was applied for to fit Dorgards then Building Control or any Scottish Fire Brigade would have to have a very good objection for the Warrant not to be approved.
Now on the subject of Standards, and as we know there are soome of us who sit on BSI committees, Dorgard has been tested via a third party testing house to BS EN 1155 and received a full test certificate after the test so that might be understood by those of us on such committees that make the Standards.Now to the nitty gritty!
As a former Fire Officer then my view was that the best place for a fire door is closed up against its jamb (and I still hold that view). As a psychologist, I accept that the behaviour of people is succh that a lot have a tendency to keep open fire doors for a number of reasons and this they do either with an illegal wedge whilst the few do fit an 'approved' device(s). As a fire engineer, I accept that there has to be more than one solution to a problem and in these times such solutions are based on risk assessment, expedience, efficiency and economic factors and in the circumstances that we are discussing here, then Dorgard has to be a considered as an option or alternative.
If there is no faith in new and innovative products then where do we advance from and do we continue to nourish the cynics or those with vested interests rather than what is a viable option to the solution of any specific case (hey! risk assessment is all about this and there are a few of us that have written hard and long on this subject - maybe they should start to believe what they are actually writing and preaching for once!)? If you need any example of this then none better than the domestic smoke alarm. I am old enough unfortunately to remember the debate that raged at the time with such arguments as they will never work because they are battery operated, will they be loud enough? they will never be serviced, create too many false alarms so the fire services will always be responding to then day and night continuously!!!! etc etc. all the excuses why we shouldn't fit them and no positives but now I see that they are now the norm and yes, we are writing more British Standards to hopefully improve on them (and I can recall the names of those who didn't want them introduced, both manufacturers and fire service people but how supportive they became when they were proved wrong but the various Governments of the day and politicians started to get excited about them!!!).
Finally, if you want to bring about world peace, if you want an end to world povery, if you want solutions to political problems in world then if you are looking for Dorgard to produce an answer to those problems then I am afraid you will wait a long time, BUT if you want a ready solution to people illegally wedging fire doors open then maybe, just maybe Dorgard is the solution you might just comnsider.
-
Is there any real evidence that these devices have failed to operate in a fire,or alarm situation? mind you I would prefer to see coventionaql release devices on Comp. and Sub Comp. doors in hospitals. What you have really got to ask is this. Is the door required to be open for the correct reasons, ie impedes normal traffic flow or is required for clinical/observation reasons. If the answer is yes then the two options should be considered, conventional against dorguard. Which of the two depends as I see it on how critical the door is to means of escape/PHE
Another factor is maintenance. If dorguard is chosen it has to be part of a ppm programme. and batteries replaced in all the devices in a premises annually. yes I know it fails when the battery expires, but all staff do not know this and then we are back to a wedge or a spoon.
-
Robert, Knowing what an old worry wart I am, and recognising that you are employed by Dorguard as I recall, although I acknowldege willingly that you are undoubtedly unbiased in your helpful advice, I wonder if you would be the person to just reassure me on a few things?
Numero Uno Was the then CACFOA document not written on the assumption that the product complied fully and was within the scope of BS 5839-3?
Numero duo Is the original CACFOA guidance regarded by CFOA as current, as it is not on their website as far as I can see.
3. Are you entirely happy that a device used in a lot of res care, self tests every 7 days, with the risk of hitting wrinklies in the teeth, a point made above by one of our learned brethern.
4 Is it not the case that the door will close at ambient noise levels above a certain value---is this a problem at the wrinklies' Friday night ceildh?
5. What if the SPL of the fire alarm system drops below 65dB(A)?
6. Is the SPl at the door not likely to drop below 65dB(A) if the nearest sounder fails, and does this not then make the means of escape very vunerable to single device failure?
7. Is the full BS EN 1155 test report available for all and sundry to peruse, as when a door manufacturer has their door tested to BS 476-22.
Just a few simple thoughts from simple countryfolk.
-
Surely the risk of hitting elderly or infirm people is as relevant when the fire alarm activates as it is when the Dorgard self tests? Can you be sure that no resident will be in the vicinity of an automatic door closing in the event of a fire alarm activation?
With regards to the dB levels this should be well assessed before Dorgards are even installed and should not be an issue if the fire alarm has been properly installed and commissioned.
Any single device failure can compromise a part of a building or the correct operation of the fire alarm.A detector not responding in a corridor would render this escape route inaccessable and be a risk to life.The system is only good as the sum of all it's parts
With regards to the high volume levels during their sociakl gatherings - it's not The Who at these things!! The Bontempi steam organ is not known for it's high volume output!
-
in response to Brians question about evidence of failure of Dorgard. i have personally seen them fail on two occassion in the same premises. this was even after being at the premises specifically to witness their correct operation.
-
Thanks for that greg. Can you tell me what was the cause of failure? was it the fact that the device itself failed to recognise the alarm sound (ie device failyre) or was it due to the fact that the alarm sounder was not close enough to give the correct sound level?
-
Brian,
It was a case of both actually, initially having been fitted they had not been adjusted correctly and did not respond to the frequency of the sound. Some of the devices once again did not actuate on the alarm and the premises had to fit additional sounders to ensure actuation. Which was an unforeseen expense for the management. What worried me most was that these had just been fitted and I would have assumed that tests would have been carried out to ensure correct function prior to the arrival of an inspecting officer. This leads me to conclude that either no pre-testing had been done which questions the competancy of the fitters or that the tests had been carried out and in a matter of days or a couple of weeks the devices had started to operate incorrectly. Obviously there are other issues over long term management of the devices and procedures and policies for deactivation in the event of alarm failure which have already been covered.
-
Surely Greg If the management had been given the correct advice in the first place. That the dorgards must be tested in situe and if they fail to operate correctly more sounders, or conventional releases may be required the expense could have been forseen
-
I agree, however I can only assume that the management were not given this advice by the salesman
-
As I understand it, there is a radio version of the Dorgard that overcomes sounder problems by having a remote sensor next to a sounder, this sensor then signalling all the Dorgard units in the vicinity to release.
I find it difficult to make my mind up about the Dorgard. Certainly the gold standard (other than keeping the doors shut of course!) is the magnetic release that forms part of the fire alarm system & certainly in high risk premises, such as the healthcare ones cited above, should be the option selected.
However, in the typical office premises like our company deals with, you are stuck with the problem of key doors being wedged (doors onto protected stairs so that there is an open inviting image to the reception, kitchens so that drinks trays can be passed through).
The occupier won't shut them, but won't pay the high cost of mag release installation & resort to the enforcing authorities is a waste of time. Dorgard potentially is a middle ground that provides better protection than doing nothing.
The key is though not to specify the device willy nilly - each potential application should be risk asseessed for suitability and also the liklihood of sucessful functioning (audibility tests, simulation, etc).
It would be nice to think you could just buy it and slap it on the door & all will be well, but as we all know life isn't that simple!
-
Mr Buzzard:
1. Fire alarm tests can be better controlled than self test.
2. A fire alarm system that has, say, 60dB(A) at the fire doors is absolutely fine, but would not meet the 65dB(A) level (obviously).
3. It is worrying if a single component failure can negate means of escape for, say, all upper floor occupants of a building-you would not accept single door separation on a single staircase condition.
4. With regard to single detector failure, I cannot understand how failure of a a single detector in a corridor can allow an escape route to be blocked unless the fire is in the corridor.
5. As I recall, but Bob may be able to confirm, it is only about 80dB(A) ambient that causes the device to operate. That is not The Who, or anything like it.
6. Also, what about medical alarms in hospitals activating the device.
-
Hi Guys sorry I am late at answering Colin's queries but have been on my Hols. Anyway, I didn't mean for my last message to be the start of some corruscating debate, just as an information techno thing but as COLIN has posed a number of questions to me then I feel suddenly impelled to answer as 'unbiased' as I possibly can!!
Firstly Colin, your recognition that I am employed by Dorgard(sic) is not quite correct as you 'recollect'. My relationship with FIRECO Ltd. who manufacture Dorgard is one of client/consultant, similar I suppose to a number of your relationships with clients par example (to use a French vernacualr as you do with the Spanish) the list in the PAS 79 Foreward. However, I do not want to split hairs so if you want to suggest that I am employed by Dorgard then it is OK with me as a like comparitor would be yourself and your employment with BSI. Now to answer the specifics as best I can:-
Numero Uno :- No it wasn't it was written on the basis of acceptance of generic products that might be used to hold open fire doors. BSEN 1155 is the appropriate standard I believe as confirmed by the BSI in March 2001 and 1155 is also the only valid standard for release devices as confirmed by the CPD, and as an aside, Dorgard was the only device at the time of testing reported by the BSI engineers to be the only product ever tested by them to 5839 Pt 3 in its entirety! As all will appreciate by now 5839-3 must now be defunct.
Numero Duo :- I cannot speak for CFOA (so why do you ask me?) but their policy is a matter for them and I am sure if you were to contact them they would be more than happy to oblige, try talking to them.
3. If the batteries are installed at noon then the Dorgards will self test at midnight as clearly stated in the FIRECO literature on the product - I will ask them to send you some product literature.
4. No, the only problem encountered and reported to FIRECO has been that Dorgards with digital signal processing discriminates so well between erroneous sounds and the fire alarm that elderly residents now have to get up an close the doors themselves to attenuate noise levels in their disco sessions that may annoy others!
5. Why should it? Is this a national problem as you seem keen to remark upon it? and if so why was your recommnedation of reducing the sound levels to 60Db in 5839-1 or even lower! Dorgards have in many situations exemplified the need for alarm SPI to be increased in order to satisfy 5839-1!! On a practical note if you read the bumph that FIRECO will send you you will see that they can be adjusted to differing sound levels.
6. Yes but then if an atomic bomb were to drop etc etc etc etc etc etc. and by the way, if the sounder were to fail why did it in the first place? and if it did would that not mean that even without Dorgards or anything else then the whole fire safety strategy of the building would be compromised? If there is such a concern over the failure rate of sounders (which is what you are suggesting) then maybe we should start the debate on that rather deflect it onto other devices, the corollary to your question is that if a sounder failed, then would not an open fire door allow better sound travel and alert those in the arera of the failed sounder? In my other life of putting out fires I did actually know this to happen in an hotel in Glasgow via a wedgd open fire door!
7. It is not in my personal gift to distribute test certificates and I cannot answer directly for any company that has paid money for the tests to be done. However I have a copy of the certificates and they show that Dorgard is fully tested to 1155 and I am informed by FIRECO that it is fully available from them and has been provided willingly for those that have bothered to ask. Have you asked? Also it was tested on a door being tested itself to 476-22 and the complete set went for 10% over the 60 minute time (1 Hour FR Door test).
I am sure that some of the readers of this debate have also read my paper in the FIRE magazine last year where it seems that so much confidence is placed on EMRs but my findings to date are that there may be serious issues with some installations especially, retro fitted, where it is obvious that they have been just wired in to the bell circuit alone and yet apart from a few Fire Brigades who recorded an interest the world of fire safety has been strangely silent on this one so maybe P Smith can check that one out vis a vis the best ones are '5839 linked systems'.
I hope that as C Newby states I have given as good reasons as I can with the back up info that I have for those of you out there to make a judgement on the use of this product or indeed any other product that you or I come across out in the field. Remeber what I said before, if you are looking foir a solution to make poverty history or bring about world peace then Dorgard won't do it, but it might just stop someone from wedging a fire door open illegally.
Cheers
BOB
-
Robert, Trust you had a lovely holiday. Alas, the French wine has caused your numbering to be out of synch with mine, but I shall, as always, in the spirit on mutual cooperation, endeavour to respond as helpfully as possible. (In passing, one tends to talk about ''employing'' consultants, which is why I used the term.)
1. BS 5839-3 is NOT actually defunct yet.
2. I asked you about CFOA because you raised their policy in the first place. However, as one always ready to seek advice, I am adopting your suggestion and asking them. I will report back to you via this thread on the BB.
3. Old people do not necessarily go to bed before midnight. Maybe they should, but the appropriate sanction for not doing so is not a door in the teeth.
4. According to Chubb literature on the product the operation of the device in response to any noise above the stated level is actually a safety feature. Is that incorrect?
5. yes it is a national problem and this is why I remarked upon it.
6. Yes sounders do sometimes fail. More sounders have failed than atomic bombs have dropped, although George Dubya seems hell bent on redressing the balance. Sounder failure is not a strange and bizarre hypothetical. And, no the whole fire safety strategy is not ruined by single sounder failure. If the atomic bomb reference was to medical alarms causing the doors to close, I was given an anecdote of such an event only last week, and allegedly someone suffered a fractured ankle.
7. You missed the point about my BS 476-22 analogy, which I am certain is my fault entirely for my lack of clarity. To clarify, if a manufacturer claims compliance with BS 476-22 for N minutes, normally he will willingly hand out a copy of the test report, not just the certificate. Under contracts with test labs, the report can only be reproduced in full, not in part. I was not suggesting that a door needed retested if fitted with your client's product, merely that, by analogy, I wondered if, since BS EN 1155 compliance is claimed, the test report can be given out? Maybe it could be sent to me along with the ''bunf'' if that would be possible?
As always many thanks for your helpful advice.
-
Have just checked. The guidance document is publicly available on the OLD CFOA website, but has not yet migrated across to the new. It is, however, under consideration for revision. The exisitng document points out that use of the self contained device is dependent on a risk assessment.
-
I am new to this forum and the debate may already of been had but does not BS EN 1155 deal with devices that may be fitted where doors are used by persons who have little incentive to care for the doors? I have always assumed that this would refer to doors such as school cross corridor doors where the heavy and continued use would soon make the fire safety features of the doors ineffective. I wouldn't have thought that this applies to bedroom doors in res care premises and the like.
-
Colin, I think the wine was good so au contraire and it is you that need to check the numbering from the original list you posed, starting with some Spanish numbering up to two(duo) then no more but back to english/arabic numbers. I know you like to think that firefighters and ex ones cannot count but hey miracles can happen. as for the dorgard debate I think I have put enough techno stuff down in these columns for others to make their minds up, onlt outstanding thing is the 5839 Part 3 debate and although I acknowledge it is still in print the logic to me seems to be that if EU and the CPD recognises 1155 as the standard then thats the one even if 5839 Pt 3 is still selling, might be a ruse by BSSI to make a few more bob or in Spanish speak Euros!
Vive la vin rouge!!!!!
-
No, Robert, I thought it was in your days that they could not count, as they only needed to be able to count up to 4 in order to make sure they had enough pennies to put in the phone box, prior to pressing button B, to send back the stop message. The young ones are often very bright nowadays. I am often impressed by some of the young sub officers or whatever they call the wallahs with the 2 thingys on their shoulders. Last thought, has the product been certificated under the CPD, or is it just supposedly tested to BS EN 1155. Just wondering, you know the way I do. Hope to read the test report over some Spanish wine.
-
Colin, 4d for a phone call, those were that days, but in my day things had advanced to pressing button B just in case you could find some loose pennies and then dialling 999 and stating to the operator 'this is a fire flash call etc etc'. How things have moved on. Re the Dorgard it has been tested to BSEN 1155, that I do know and it has a test certificate to prove it but I am not the keeper of the 'golden fleece' so best to take the Argonauts and ask FIRECO yourself, I am sure they will oblige. Heres hoping you get on the IFE Board, we could do with some opposition to the FPA and IFE becoming one (although most people out there perceive it to be so already)
'this is a fire flash- end of message'
Cheers
BOB
-
bob, didnt we have something else aswell as fireflash - i seem to recall two 'free' calls we could make - was one for admin aswell as the one for emergency?
dave bev
-
Davey, Stop pretending. You know you are only half the age of Robert. He can remember the days when it was only sissies who wore BA. Robert, thank you for your good wishes. Would still like to see the BS EN test report, but I shall put it on the same list as screwing Joanna Lumley. Something that I would very much enjoy and would strive to achieve if I ever had time, but unlikely to be achieved before I die.
-
Now come on Colin I know that would be absolutely fabulous but think of the old heart. Mind you I would like to see the risk assessment.
Hazard heart attack. control measures. 1. thinning the blood using the finest malt whiskey 2. going slowly. We wore BA as it was a novelty item. Proto 1V and salvus. I know; those brass helmets were difficult to keep clean.
I think dorgards have their uses, but like you I would like to see the test report.
-
does ms lumley come apart?
and i do remember the fireflash and the other one (whatever it was) - perhaps its bob doc who is much younger than he looks?
dave bev
-
Hi Dave thanks for that I would just like my hair back though, never mind Joanna Lumley, Hey Colin heard you got on to the Board so congrats, now lets work together to get rid of this FPA link and then what about this for a cunning plan - let the IFE buy an office, say centrally in Leicester and then lets employ a few people who could work solely for the IFE, good plan or what? lets run it past Dennis
Yours in Honkers for a week
Cheers
BOB
-
Hello Robert, yes your vote counted. One hopes that Davey voted for me to after all I do in praise of his master and mistress, The Rack and The Ruthie. i will put your idea to the Board, but, in the meantime, you are aware of my views in respect of the link. The problem with someone hanging onto your coat tails is that it always brings you down in the end.
-
Hi guys
I have just come across this thread so apologies for the late comment and actually talking about the subject of this thread and not about how much better Maltese wine is, but I thought I would add my tuppenceworth of experience with them in an old folks home.
The unit I looked at was fitted to the bottom outside corner of a bedroom door which sets up a warping stress across the door. (I know many magnetic hold-backs are fitted there as well but it is expressly advised against in the literature.)
The constant pull on the carpet had caused a ridge large enough to stop the door closing on roughly a third of the releases I checked. I know that that can be easily remedied but it represents an additional maintenance cost. It also depends on someone noticing the problem in the first place.
In this respect floor clearance is critical as on some of the failures it was the rubber foot of the plunger whch failed to clear the carpet and held the door open. It did not always seem to retract completely. Given all the possible problems with old doors this did not inspire confidence. Perhaps in a brand new building this would not be such an issue.
I felt they were, in effect, part of the arrangements for fire detection and alarm and considered that they should be included in the weekly test in the same way as mag-held doors. As bedroom doors could be closed for any number of reasons we decided that someone should be present to check their correct operation at the time. Simply finding the bedroom door closed after the test was not felt to be a positive enough indication that they were operating. Not a big issue with only one or two units but could be a problem if they were used extensively.
Since they would be used due mainly to the frailty of the room's occupant, we would need to make sure that they were all clear of the doors before we did a test. Doors closing due to a normal alarm is one thing but during a test becomes a reasonably forseeable hazard requiring action.
Not much on the face of it but enough to persude the council not to use them.
Viva vin rouge perhaps, but whisky makes you frisky Colin!
-
What can I say. The above treatise is yet another reflection on the Scottish education system.
-
, but whisky makes you frisky
it just makes me fight with my Dad on Xmas day.
-
Perhaps if you gave your dad some it might help?
-
he already had half the bottle.
-
just finshed testing a site with these fitted.Two worked after i took the batteries out and back ,one failed to operate even though there was an alarm device very closeby and another stuck on the carpet halfway.
All the others worked fine apart from leaving a big score in the carpets.
-
Ideal really.
-
If they are this good I may install them in my house!!
-
Smith Towers would be enhanced by them I am sure.
-
The Irony is that Joe Bloggs fits them thinking that they are a fantastic wire free idea only to find out some wont work because sound levels are not high enough,so the solution is to run cables for additional alarm devices.
-
Hi Graeme, trouble is Joe Bloggs fits all kinds of things, that why we have B&Q! also Joe Fire Brigade fits loads of smoke alarms as well and some fit them with double sided sticky pads or look no nails!! well, are they the experts or what? anyway don't blame the equipment that does not work because of other failures, like who fitted the fire alarm in the first place and did they do a sound check and did the fire brigade not check it on inspection and did the maintenance team not check sound levels under the contract etc etc etc etc. Hey risk assessment is great isn't it? thats when I have found the beloved (by some) EMRs not fitted and wired correctly but not much space in these columns devoted to them is there!!!! You know some people just don't read the instructions even when fitting life saving stuff like smoke alarms, Dorgards, fire alarms and yes believe it or not EMRs. Oh and by the way was the door ACTUALLY warped Ian?
Cheers
BOB
-
Hi Bob
On this site Joe Bloggs did not install them and i'm saying in general that they are regarded as a brilliant idea by those not technical who think they can go on every door.
The holders on this occasion did not work on two doors due to equipment failure and not from another factor.
I would not be confident that they will all work when needed.I saw this for myself and i would also not install them.
The Manager mentioned that they activated every time they had a Wedding and the Bride was Piped in.
The maintance team do not carry out DBa tests as a routine service unless asked by the ownwer to carry one out,the Fire Brigade don't do sound tests.If you take on a new contract then i would carry out a special service with DBa tests.
These are my opinions on the units anyway.
-
The answer is to equip every occupant with a set of bagpipes, the teaching of which sould be compulsory anyway.
-
Hi Bob
No, this particular door was not warped but then the unit had not been fitted for very long. It would be unfair to blame the Dorgard for this anyway since warping is caused by incorrect installation of the hold-back relative to the closer. The trouble is that this is the only place you can mount a Dorgard unit whereas most other kinds can be mounted in the correct position to avoid diagonal stress over the door leaf.
And before someone points out with relish that this would be caught by the maintenance regime, I entirely accept that it should. In the same way as the carpet rucking up and the unit not clearing one in every three tries and the local sounder developing a fault and - and - and. It was the difficulty in gauranteeing against human error; that all the faults would be caught, that persuaded us against them. There are enough problems using system integrated units, why introduce more ?
Remember too, I was talking about an old peoples home with frail occupants. they may well be acceptable in another, more robust, environment.............subject to risk assessment and the statutory bagpipe conservation survey.
Nice to know the old folks would be safe at least once a year on Burn's night when they would all be out the way tucking into the 'cratur' when the doors suddenly release. =D
-
As a fire officer,who is currently deciding if i should object to some Dorguards being installed in a resi care home i have inspected, i came here for some help. The message is clear. Nobody really knows the correct answer. If i posed the question: Can i allow Dorguards on a single staircase in a resi care premises i suspect i would get widely differing answers. Due to the incredibly inept guidance and support to enforcing officers i cannot delve through volumes of BS's or Co letters to find my answer.The result would be the same. Therefore my decision can only be made on the particular premises and then after careful consideration and knowledge of fire and people behaviour. At least with 22 years experience of fire i have a chance of getting it right. Unfortunately with the new regime of risk assessing everthing, many owners will have made their own decisions based more on convenience than safety. Are occupiers vigilant enough to realise if their premises has already been risk-assessed away from other matters? Should this single staircase even be allowed up to 2 floors with 3 rooms opening onto each level? Should the reception be within the stair enclosure?
A major overhaul of thinking in fire legislation is required and in my opinion the more prescriptive the better. At least everyone will know where they stand.
For the record this premises has 5 Dorguards arriving to install next week. My current thinking is that 1 of them could be considered necessary and be permitted.
-
I was at an OPH three weeks ago and thay had 5 Dorgard's installed and they all worked,so i'm seeing mixed results.
However i am in the process of making a Bagpipe evacuation system which is ideal for this application.
-
Ohhh,you cynic!I have two sheltered schemes that have Dorgards installed throughout (by a third party) and they all work.
-
Davaleric, I like the idea of you risk assessing the situation based on 22 years experience. Personally, I would tend to avoid fitting hold open devices of any sort in a single staircase situation, but if it really is necessary you want to be sure about the level of AFD and that the devices will really fail safe in the event of failure of the fire alarm system. Listen to your gut feel and judgement , not the prejudices or hype of others!!!
-
Wasn't there some guidance around at one time to the effect that door-holders were OK for doors dividing corridors but not for those serving stairs forming part of an escape route. I know that thinking on this subject has changed over the years but must admit to apprehension with regard to single staircase conditions.
-
Single staircases and dorguard, not for me I'm afraid. I would tend to look at the reasons why you need them. Why will normal auto closures not surfice. Is there an operational need for them to be open in working hours etc. If so then surely this is a behavioural issue?? People need to be influenced into always making sure fire doors are shut once they have carried out specific tasks that require the doors to be held open.
If you look at the postings on this thread you will see that many have experience of the failings of these devices, hovever there are few if any that have a good word to say about them, well that are not involved in selling them that is.
Paul
-
davaleric
What should have a bearing on your decision should be contained in the premises FRA. It is then down to you to decide whether or not their use is reasonable.
In other words it is down to the FA to either accept or reject. In rejecting, the FA should give their reasons in writing. Before that the FA should view the RA, which amongst other things would give some indication as to the level of fire management in place. This should include written evidence of the RA case for fitting the units.
Unfortunately what makes the owners case generally weak is that the risk assessment has not addressed the matter, leaving the FA IO only to reject the case without 'a shot being fired'.
In this and similar circumstance owners create their own problems.
With professional advice a case may be made.
Oh by the way I would not support the use of dorguard devices on doors enclosing a sigle staircase in res care premises.
-
davaleric
In other words it is down to the FA to either accept or reject. In rejecting, the FA should give their reasons in writing. .
the FA do not have the right to accept or reject .
if they dont like it serve an enforcement notice and then they should appeal against the notice and then the person in the wig decides not the FA
Give Me strength
-
johndoe
I am concerned if my comments sap your strength so readily.
My response to davaleric was addressed to a serving IO who would i am certain understands that rejection may instigate an enforcement notice. However it is not as black and white as that.
Was he acting as an advisor to the CSCI under their enforcement regulations?
Therefore no grounds for enforcement notice or
In accordance with the FP Wk Place Regs?
In which case would their use deem to compromise the safety of staff?
I thought the idea of moving away from the prescriptive approach was to encourage two way conversation between the responsible person and the FA. The sighting of an appropriate RA would be a start.
History come April 2006.
-
I thought the idea was that let the RP who are doing it get on with it and the FA seek out those higher risk premises that are not. Res care is a high risk premises and even if under CCSI the FA only offers advice.
My point was that the FA have no power come 2006 to accept or reject they have power to enforce and then the law takes it course. I Thought moving away from prescription was to allow self regulation ( wether that is good or bad is another debate). Too many IO`s think they have this power was my point
If the FA does not like RA then enforce and see what the judge says.
Oh by the way remond me what happened the last time your fA went to court on an enforcement notice appeal?
-
Johndoe
I agree that the objective is for the RP to do their own thing. Of the FA's that I deal with inspection programmes are varied. My point is that under CSCI regulations the FA have no powers of enforcement.
I assumed that my comment on rejecting the RA in writing would be interpreted by an IO as an enforcement notice.
Im certain that we are on the same team perhaps my use of laymans terms of accept or reject. Its just that in dealing with clients its a comment I generally use before explaining the legal position.
Out of interest Im still regularly in contact with IO's from several brigades who insists on issuing enforcement notices under the FPWK Regs where clearly it is not appropriate. Perhaps we should'nt blame the IO's but point the finger at poor management. Unfortunatly RP listen to the uniform (occasionally to their detriment) rather than the advisor sat on their side of the table.
Communication is the word with prosecution the last resort.
I am not employed by a FA can you explain your last para.
-
Sorry I was confusing you with another steve w who works for a large metro FA which lost an appeal against an enforcement notice.
-
I am looking to install a Dorgard on my premises, i understand the basic principals of how it works but do they need to be installed by a qualified electrician in order to for it to comply with the BS7273-4C? Can anyone help?
-
Dorguard is a stand alone device operated on an audio basis. You can fit them yourself, no wiring involved but make sure that you comply with the appendices at the back of BS7224-4 and that this type of Class B device is allowable in your particular type of premises. The only other thing is to ensure that when the Fire alarm sounds that the device actually operates and closes the door it is holding open.
-
Sorry typo there BS 7273-4.
-
I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it. All doors were held open. How does that work then?
-
I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it. All doors were held open. How does that work then?
The noise from the machinery wasn't at the frequency(ies) needed to trigger the dorgard?
-
I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it. All doors were held open. How does that work then?
The noise from the machinery wasn't at the frequency(ies) needed to trigger the dorgard?
Is that a more than likeley answer or another question?
-
I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it. All doors were held open. How does that work then?
The noise from the machinery wasn't at the frequency(ies) needed to trigger the dorgard?
Is that a more than likeley answer or another question?
SidM, it is a guess at the answer put in the format of a question based on the fact that I can't possibly definitely know the answer because I don't have all the facts and knowledge!
The guess I made was on the assumption that the dorgards are in proper working condition and that my understanding is that they are 'tuned' to react to the frequencies of fire alarm sounder warning devices. Since they didn't close (and assuming they are not faulty) it must be assumed that the machinery is not giving out the frequencies required to operate them.
However, I agree it does seem strange. I would have thought that loud machinery operating must create a wide spectrum of harmonics across many frequencies, and based on the many stories of dorgard units operating to the noise created by a simple vacuum cleaner then it is stranger still.
The effect of general noise on Dorgard units is supported by the fact that I believe they also make a version that has a RF transmitter that should be sited close to sounders and which sends a radio signal to operate nearby 'non-acoustic' Dorgards. In fact, I wonder if maybe they use these wireless signal versions at the site you are talking about precisely because of the noise of the machinery!
Finally, one would assume these devices are tested on a regular basis and that they function correctly whichever version they use. Maybe the warehouse owners can provide the answer.