FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: lingmoor on September 18, 2012, 10:36:06 AM
-
In what situation would you accept fire doors that are already insitu but do not have cold smoke seals/intumescent strips?
I have come across this with two admin offices on the first floor and a patient clinic on the ground floor with a single protected staircase...there's two way travel on ground floor
personally I would risk assess it as ok because with the fire alarm system installed they would all have early warning and get out
however, I'm unsure if local enforcement officers would see it that way!
-
In what situation would you accept fire doors that are already insitu but do not have cold smoke seals/intumescent strips?
I have come across this with two admin offices on the first floor and a patient clinic on the ground floor with a single protected staircase...there's two way travel on ground floor
personally I would risk assess it as ok because with the fire alarm system installed they would all have early warning and get out
however, I'm unsure if local enforcement officers would see it that way!
It depends on your local enforcement officer Lingmoor but you have made an assessment already by considering them ok on the bases of the compensatory detection system. Unless enclosing a stairway I would suggest them ok with the detection installed and if the enforcement authority didn't agree, it is easily remedied.
That's my view which may not be that of the EA.
-
thanks for your opinion nearlythere
-
I would agree with NT. If you can justify why you have done something your friendly local fire officer should (hopefully) be able to follow your reasoning and go along with it.
Latest standards would dictate you need strips and seals on your door but with existing doors, even doors enclosing a single staircase, you may not need to upgrade to strips and seals.
It would be be different if it was a sleeping risk but in the situation you describe if people are awake and alert, you have early warning, and trained staff to marshall visitors out the building quickly, and they can reach a final exit well before fire could effect the staircase or MOE, then why do you need to upgrade the doors? That would be my logic.
-
if you havent read this - then you probably should
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/hotel-bedroom-fire-door-determination
-
if you havent read this - then you probably should
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/hotel-bedroom-fire-door-determination
Yes but the determination was not issued as general guidance.
The determination is based entirely on the circumstances of the hotel in question, and the decision was taken after careful consideration of the particular circumstances of the case.
I get your drift WB but I still generally go for Int and SS on doors to stairways in sleeping risks.
-
I was going to bring up wee brian's point but was beaten to it. I can't see how the EA could issue a notice to get strips and seals fitted in this case; it was hard enough in the hotel in question.
I think the new flats guide (published last year) brought some common sense to the issue of strips and seals. If the doors are the original FD30/60 doors and still perform their function i.e. they have effective self closers and are not breached or damaged they are fine as they are. If a door no longer performs its function or is damaged then it should be replaced with a new FD30s door to current standards. I think when the Fire Safety Order first came in fire officers went mad enforcing strips and seals on any door in any building that didn’t have them. Time has now moved on and hopefully a more realistic, risk based approach is being accepted where a fire risk assessment has been done and the omission of strips and seals is noted, risk assessed and justified.
-
See...
http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=5782.msg63430#msg63430
All the guidance available says they should be installed in F/R doors & explains why.
Now... you don't have to follow the guidance of course (that's why it's called "guidance"), but if you don't you should be able to explain why you can achieve an equivalent level of safety without upgrading the doors. This might be perfectly possible, based on the circumstances (considering means of detection & warning; means of escape; fire-fighting access etc, etc...). The determination cited a good example - smoke detection was installed in the rooms, which arguably compensated for the uncertain fire resistance performance of the doors.
-
All the guidance available says they should be installed in F/R doors & explains why.
Hi Fishy, which guidance are you referring to that recommends the fitting of S&S to good fitting, non damaged existing fire doors? There is also the problem of removing a decent door, rebating the door or frame to install S&S and the door it not as good fit in the frame as before. If they are needed and are justified I have no problem, I was meaning that we should by now have moved away from "all doors need S&S" mentality regardless.
-
What the Det was trying to say was that you shouldnt just impose the latest 'new build' standards on exisiting buildings unless the risk justifies an upgrade.
The same guidance that says strips and seals on fire doors will also ask for a whole bunch of other things that you won't find in some existing buildings. Do we knock down every building in the country and start again?
Clearly, the Det is not formal guidance, but why do you think they get published?
-
I believe the determination quite clearly says that the doors should have strips and seals; what it confirms is that this may not necessarily be a 'priority' requiring immediate remedial works when there are other features within the premises that compensate. One of the fundamental issues within the determination is that the risk assessment must clearly state on what grounds that the lack of strips/seals or other fire (protection) measures is considered acceptable and for how long - i.e. does the RP have a programme to replace these doors over a set period of time.
-
Golden, the determination does not say anything of the sort. Huge amounts of ratepayers money was wasted by this fire and rescue authority because of an old fashioned prescriptive approach to the provision of fire precautions without any proper consideration of risk versus cost. There is no suggestion that the doors need to be fitted with strips and seals. Read what Wee B and Willie said and listen to what they say.
-
Colin, I was trying to state a case that the determination does not say that strips/seals are not required and writing 'the doors' in my response was inaccurate and I apologise if anyone is mislead. From my reading of the determination fire doors generally should be fitted with strips and seals but in certain circumstances these may not be necessary if the provision of such does not reduce the risk to such an extent that justifies the costs; particularly where other fire precautions are present that compensate for the lack of strips/seals.
The point I was trying to make is that some interpret the determination to mean that strips and seals are not required whereas this needs to be considered on a case by case basis rather than a generalisation. I think what I was trying to say was exactly what you've said in your second sentence - that being prescriptive 'either way' can lead to confusion and that proper consideration of the bigger picture is necessary.
Edit: And I fully agree with Wee B and Willie and wasn't trying to argue against them, I am however concerned that there are others out there without their FS backgrounds that will interpret the determination in a way that suits them!
-
If we look at it from another angle for a moment. Let’s say a new fire door standard comes out in 2013 (I don’t think one does by the way?) and this new BS determines due to some new fire door tests and research that all hinges on NEW fire doors need to be rated to 1200oC, whereas before around 800oC was fine. On an FRA of an existing building would you recommend that all the hinges on all fire doors are replaced for 1200oC rated ones irrespective of if there are compensations in place? Or would you say replace them on a “programmed plan of refurbishment works”. For what its worth, I’ll give you my view……both would be wrong. However if any door was replaced due to damage etc then it would be replaced with an FD30s1200 door. (I made that bit up please don’t Google it).
The point I am making is sometimes what is existing is just that existing and acceptable as it is….. if it can be justified, risk assessed and documented appropriately in the FRA.
-
They would have to redefine the time temperature curve first as it only goes up to 800oC up to 30 minutes so I would question where they got their evidence from!
Of course I would ignore that in existing buildings and not due to cost but due to the fact that I would consider the risk of a hinge failing above that temperature is insignificant - for FRA purposes at least - as I may well ignore brass hinges and many other minor infringements of the current standards if I didn't consider it to be risk critical. However some doors do need replacing or upgrading with respect to IS/SS as the positive pressure test indicates that smoke and hot gases may pass around the door and that his can happen quite quickly.
I am 100% behind not trying to bring all buildings up to new build standards and I find the issue of fire doors (nominal or BS certified) to be one of the most interesting discussion points - and we haven't even mentioned door frames yet. For me its all about context and not sweeping generalisations that because a determination has been made for a specific case that this now becomes the new rule to be applied in all circumstances.
-
All the guidance available says they should be installed in F/R doors & explains why.
Hi Fishy, which guidance are you referring to that recommends the fitting of S&S to good fitting, non damaged existing fire doors? There is also the problem of removing a decent door, rebating the door or frame to install S&S and the door it not as good fit in the frame as before. If they are needed and are justified I have no problem, I was meaning that we should by now have moved away from "all doors need S&S" mentality regardless.
BS8214; all the CLG Guides; general fire safety literature etc, etc... if there's any government or ACOP guidance that says you can have a door with defined fire resistance without them, I've never seen it.
As I said, if you're happy not to follow good industry practice then that's fine. You just have to be able to explain why it's safe not to do so. This would normally be via an argument based upon equivalent risk (e.g. compensatory measures elsewhere). Just saying "I don't like them / I don't believe in them / I don't think they're useful / my chippy always buggers the doors up when he fits them" doesn't really fit the bill.
The way I look at it... the default position is that they should be installed, because that's what all the guidance recommends. To go away from the default, you have to argue convincingly why this is acceptably safe. That's the test that the Courts seem to apply, so that's the test that I use.
-
This old chestnut will probably only be resolved if there is ever a death contributed to the lack of smoke seals.
Old style FD 30 doors were never designed or tested for smoke stopping the 25mm rebate was provided to compensate for the burning away of the rebate. Once the rebate is attacked by fire the rebate starts to loose its fire stopping. How much hot or cold smoke smoke will pass the old style 25mm rebates during a fire has as far as I can find has never been quantified.
So if smoke spread is what you want to stop is a door originally designed for fire spread suitable?. If you want to stop smoke spread, smoke seals are designed and installed for exactly that.
Perhaps the BRE should do some test they did some on activation of smoke detectors in corridors from room fires but I can not find a copy of the research report to see what kind of FR doors were used. It was some time ago so probably they never had seals.
-
Jayjay , the dors did not have seals. They used BS 459-3 doors (and also fiddled about with domestic doors).
-
"The way I look at it... the default position is that they should be installed, because that's what all the guidance recommends. To go away from the default, you have to argue convincingly why this is acceptably safe. That's the test that the Courts seem to apply, so that's the test that I use".
Extracts from PAS 79:11 (draft)
The assessment of fire precautions in the fire risk assessment does not merely involve rigid comparison of existing fire precautions with standards set out in prescriptive codes of practice. Similarly, the action plan is not based on rigid adherence to prescriptive norms found in codes of practice. To adopt such an approach would not necessarily result in risk-proportionate fire precautions. Nevertheless, in assessing or formulating measures to eliminate or control fire hazards (see 3.33), it will often be appropriate, in the case of certain fire hazards, such as potential electrical faults, to adopt guidance in recognized codes of practice. This will particularly be the case where these codes of practice
are well established, universally recognized, produced by authoritative bodies with specialist knowledge regarding the hazard in question, and based on sound scientific or engineering principles (as opposed to arbitrary judgements).
......In addition, sometimes different recommendations apply to new and existing premises. For example, recommendations within guidance that supports building regulations often differ from recommendations within guidance that supports legislation applicable to existing premises.
Typically, guidance on fire protection measures for new premises (e.g. guidance that supports building regulations) is more onerous
than guidance on fire precautions in existing premises (e.g. guidance that supports the relevant fire safety legislation). This makes rigid adherence to any particular code of practice even less appropriate. It also means that guidance that supports building regulations in respect of new premises might be unduly onerous to apply for the purposes of a fire risk assessment for existing premises, constructed before the
introduction of the current building regulations.
.........This has led to a school of thought amongst some experts that the application of prescriptive codes of practice within the fire risk assessment is inappropriate. However, while there is a need for risk-proportionate fire precautions, rather than rigid application of prescriptive norms, it should be borne in mind that prescriptive codes of practice have achieved their objective; for example, it is rare for multiple
fatality deaths to occur in non-domestic premises that comply with the relevant prescriptive code of practice, unless a number of failures in fire safety management have occurred.
.............This PAS is intended to be suitable for use by, for example, fire risk assessors with a background in application or enforcement of traditional prescriptive fire protection codes of practice. Accordingly, it is assumed that published guidance will be a starting point or benchmark for assessment of the adequacy of fire precautions in the premises. It is, however, further assumed that the fire risk assessor is capable of exercising judgement to determine whether the recommendations of such guidance should be relaxed, or added to, in order to determine the appropriate level of fire precautions and to formulate a risk-proportionate action plan.
-
If we look at it from another angle for a moment. Let’s say a new fire door standard comes out in 2013 (I don’t think one does by the way?) and this new BS determines due to some new fire door tests and research that all hinges on NEW fire doors need to be rated to 1200oC, whereas before around 800oC was fine. On an FRA of an existing building would you recommend that all the hinges on all fire doors are replaced for 1200oC rated ones irrespective of if there are compensations in place? Or would you say replace them on a “programmed plan of refurbishment works”. For what its worth, I’ll give you my view……both would be wrong. However if any door was replaced due to damage etc then it would be replaced with an FD30s1200 door. (I made that bit up please don’t Google it).
The point I am making is sometimes what is existing is just that existing and acceptable as it is….. if it can be justified, risk assessed and documented appropriately in the FRA.
Sorry to be coming back late to your post William but if it was the case that a new BS determined that due to some new fire door tests and research that all hinges on NEW fire doors need to be rated to 1200 C then, in tests or research, it must be because 800 C has been shown to be insufficient for a fire door. Might this mean that existing 800 C hinges are no linger suitable and should be replaced so that the door can fulfill it's purpose properly?
-
No problems....perhaps in this case the example I made up is a bad one! :-X and I take your point. But hopefully you get the idea I'm coming from which is replacing or upgrading fire safety provisions without first looking at the benchmark and the standards at the time of construction. I think the new PAS 79 comes at it from a common sense approach and the diagram re benchmarking provided is useful.