FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: ian gough on September 11, 2005, 12:59:12 PM
-
The ODPM are suggesting that whilst 3 storey houses and loft conversions should have half-hour fire protected staircases, you shouldn't have to fit self closing devices. What's everyone's thoughts on this?
-
Mixed. Half of me says that I would not want to live in a house with self closers and that, in practice, people take them off. So, what is the point of basing fire precautions on a counsel of perfection that will not be achieved; should we not base them on an assumption that the doors are not self closing.
The other half says that even a domestic 10 minute door does a great job in holding back fires as all operational firefighters know. It is even more of a counsel of prefection to believe that people will shut all doors before going to bed, even in these days of CFS. If they do take the s/c devices off that is their problem, but should we not provide people with a standard that, if they do not compromise it, can make a major contributuion to life safety. One wonders how many rescues have been avoided by the humble self closers.
-
Thanks Colin. Your views are not too disimilar to my own.
However, for new build I do favor either the existing standard in AD 'B' (although I really do not have much faith in rising butt hinges) - which includes the option we already have for 'loft conversion' type scenario - or residential fire sprinklers with good smoke detection. If it were my house, I know what we would prefer as my wife hates having all the doors shut.
I really don't think ODPM are too sure themselves on this.
-
Rising butt hinges are an old chestnut too. I hate them , but one of my colleagues feels that they are less liely to be removed than an overhead self closer, so there is a chance that they will remain. One does wonder if they are a good compromise.
-
The new Perko concealed closer is quite good. However,why should the State force people to keep their doors closed in their own premises. They will be disabled or wedged.
My feelings are that self closers should only be required where a door left open would compromise the means of escape of another of the buildings occupiers. IE common escape routes in flats or HIMOS.
ADB shoiuld be concentrating on detection and alarm with domestic sprinklers in new properties.
-
Brian, The state requires people to have smoke alarms and the consequent inconvenience of false alarms, quite simply because they save lives. I have a horrible feeling the same may be true of self closing devices.
-
Colin
There is evidence that alarms save lives. Do you know of any evidence to support self-closing devices in domestic premises.
HTM 81 does not require S/C on bedroom fire doors. Over the years I have been involved with several bedroom fires in mental health premises none of which caused damage outside the room of origin as the staff closed the door.
I remember a fire in Humberside hotel where a self closer actually caused a death.
It was in an hotel room that had two occupants that were drunk. The first occupant threw the door back against the wall on escaping, embedding the arm of the self closer in the wall. The second occupant was found behind the door as if he was trying to open the door, which of course was already open. No other occupants of the hotel were affected. Yes OK I know it is a one off.
-
In my humble opinion as an operational firefighter and MSc qualified fire engineer (well I have a piece of paper to say that but we know the true value of that without experience!!) is that there is no doubt that this piece of equipment functions well in allowing additional time to escape in the presence of suitable & sufficient detection, restricts the growth of the fire by limiting the flow of oxygen, allows rapid intervention by the calvary in the red trucks and increases the efficiency of any suppression system such as domestic sprinklers. The point of the discussion comes to choice of the occupiers in that does the state dictate their fire safety or does the occupier who may not have any great concern or awareness of fire make that choice.
I think on reflection that we always let the occupier chose but assist them in their choice by positive action within the construction of the premise. Therefore a positive choice of improving their fire safety is easy with the closers already being fitted. As mentioned the fitting of hard wired smoke alarms with resultant nuisance false alarms has on the whole been accepted over a period of time by the occupiers as being the norm. Over a period of time and with continual education, these closers whilst not being fool proof will inevitably create a positive impact in the event of a negative event such as a fire.
-
There is no doubt that having a closed door between your escape route and the fire improves you chances of escape leaps and bounds.
The question here is do we think that the provision of a door closer on a domestic door will have any influence on it being closed. My view is that it won't. The only way you can get a domestic door closed is if the occupant chooses to close it.
-
The problem is Brian you are suggesting taking away the safety afforded to Mr Compliant just because Mr Non-Compliant may not comply.
-
I believe that there are really two types of fire:slow/smouldering and fast growing/flaming.
I'm confident that for a slow/smouldering fire my smoke alarm will wake and alert me and i'll be OK; however, for a fast growing domestic fire, I'm certainly not so confident that a non fire resisting door will save my life - even when I'm woken up (I've seen a lot of fires go through both FR doors and floors like a hot knife through butter and floors currently leave a lot to be desired). And, as I don't like self-closing fire doors, that's why I believe a residential fire sprinkler is the better alternative.
But perhaps we should have more choice as 'Guest' alludes to (although he didn't mention sprinklers)?
Thanks for the comments. It will be interesting to see what happens here.
-
Colin.
Surely Mr Compliant, if he exists, Will shut the door at night if I ask him to.
Ian.
I understand where youre coming from but lets not get dragged into the sprinkler debate on this thread.
-
Ian,
BCO's in my area have accepted LD2 or LD2, plus all rooms adjoining escape routes, Grade D or E'ish, alarm system, in lieu of self closers, in houses of three floors. or two floors and loft, with a staircase enclosure.
They generally consult with fire service, and we agree.
The reasons being:-
1. Evidence from BCO's and FSO's that SC devices are removed after completion in dwellings, or the doors are wedged (I took the perko of the door to my own garage)
2. The assumption that probably occupiers will close doors to higher risk rooms at night
3. The additional detection will give earlier warning enabling folks to instigate their carefully prepared evacuation plan!!
Seems a better idea than folks dangling out of their loft conversion awaiting rescue by ladder, or waiting for the detectors in the staircase to go off.
Hey ho!
All the best,
Brian
-
Thanks Brian.
-
Only if you drop round in person, Brian.
-
I don't understand it. The authors say that there is no longer a need for them because some people don't use them. Some people don't use seatbelts, but I don't hear the police saying we should remove the requirement for them.
Why not recommend the provision of the self closing door AND the smoke detection?
-
I also take your point Chris.
I feel that the ODPM are in 'no man's land' over this and really haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
I know of many home owners/builders who have been in serious conflict with BCOs over this, and FR protection has been seen as essential. However, protected routes are no good with the door open!
Also, just to add to earlier comments: what about the 'hard to reach' that fire services and ODPM are so concerned about? I'll bet education programmes will really help there.
-
Chris
Its not some people, its almost everybody.
Unlike seatbelts its impossible to enforce their use.
Also unlike seatbelts a doorcloser never saved anybodies life. The doors do the saving and doorclosers in domestic environments are innefective.
If smoke alarms were as useless as doorclosers then they would go in the bin too.
-
Wee Brian, so why persist with the protected route strategy? ODPM's latest suggestion smacks of a 'fingers crossed' strategy to me.
-
Chris
Its not some people, its almost everybody.
Unlike seatbelts its impossible to enforce their use.
Also unlike seatbelts a doorcloser never saved anybodies life. The doors do the saving and doorclosers in domestic environments are innefective.
If smoke alarms were as useless as doorclosers then they would go in the bin too.
Even if 99% of people didn't use the things, I remain unconvinced that the authorities should stop advising people about best practise.
Enforcement might be impossible, but I think that advice should focus on what is best, not what is most easily enforcable.
Surely what saves lifes (or reduces risks) is the package of compartmentation, the door closing mechanism being an essential part of that.
..........just my thoughts......
-
Ian
The idea is that you build the building in a way which can be safe if people follow the community fire safety advice.
If we ditch the protected route then they cant close the doors even if they want to.
I'd rather have a closed door between me and a fire than share the same space as a sprinklered fire.
-
Why would you share the same space as a sprinklered fire? You either stay safely in your bedroom (probably behind that door) and with your head out of the window; or walk quickly through the steam!
Maybe we could arrange for you to try it? Indeed, already a few members of the public have - quite safely. This is much more preferable than wondering when the flashover is going to occur!
-
Ok so you agree that we need a door and the sprinklers. is that what you are saying?
If I walk through the steam how do I see where I am going?
-
Don't forget, we are talking 3 storey domestic here:
1) I've never yet come across a client who wants no bedroom doors. So keep the bedroom doors - they don't seem to cause a problem.
2) I have come across many clients (and others) who do not want FR doors - but moreover, do not want self closing doors (FR or otherwise). So, here is a problem.
3) And I've also come across many who want open-plan lower floors (usually gallery study or lounge). Another problem!
I'm happy therefore with normal doors to bedrooms; window exits; domestic sprinkler - PLUS smoke detection in risk rooms.
OR: as per current AD 'B' guidance - as the home owner prefers.
You really must get a shot at walking through a real fire Brian!
Maybe it should be compulsory for all fire engineers at least once?
It's not really as bad as you might think - even without BA (in the bad old days we even used to train in real fires - without BA - because recruits weren't good enough to wear such sophisticated kit). So a sprinklered fire should not prove too difficult for you.
-
Ian don't go down the "I'm a fireman so I know all about fire" thing because you have a strong enough argument without resorting to such rubbish.
As with many fire safety issues we are starting from the wrong place. We have an established principle of protected routes in dwellings over the 4.5m height. Exactly how effective this is we really do not know.
Sprinkler protection does, of course offer some benefits, but to trade it off against physical seperation we need to be convinced that it will provide similar protection. which it doesn't.
The scenario you paint of closed bedroom doors and a sprinklered fire downstairs suggets that the occupants are going to be trapped in their bedrooms. This is not escape to a place of safety this is living a bit longer in the hope that some of your ex-colleagues show up.
Leaving our differences aside and getting back to the point of this particular thread, would you insist on self closers for the bedroom doors that you're suggesting or not?
-
Hi everyone.
I must declare a vested interest since I presented a paper on this issue and demonstrated a solution at the Fire Service College last week. Nevertheless I think the proposal is dangerous for the public and firefighters alike.
I will try to explain why but it is hard without a picture.
My principal concern is in relation to new style three storey houses. From the stats I have collected and figures obtained from one national housebuilder, 85-90% of houses built today are of this type as builders and local authorities strive to meet quotas. This compares with around 10% of existing housing stock being 3 storey.
Therefore my first point is that whatever risk is associated with 3 storey properties, it is getting worse asthe propotion of these houses in the overall housing stock increases
In all the constructions I have seen, the sleeping accomodation is on the top floor, living spaces on the 2nd and the kitchen, utility room and garage entrance on the ground floor.
The stairs go up to the first floor, back on themselves in a gallery and then up to the third floor. All the doors to all the rooms open directoly onto the galleries i.e 3 feet from the stairs themselves. In accordance with current guidance, the smoke alarms are fitted in hallways.
Imagine a family sleeping on the top floor and a fire starts in one of the lower floor rooms. If the doors are open, the smoke alarms will trigger quickly but also the onlty means of escape will quickly become compromised. Even if we assume that someone wakes up, they will look down the stairwell and see smoke and possiblly light from flames as well.
Their reaction will be to wake the children, gather everyone in a bedroom and shut the door. Given that they are 3 storeys up, their chances of surviving a jump are slim. Their only chance is to hope that the Service gets to them before the fire or smoke do.
OPDM quoted a stat in their Fire Kills campaign that 41% of people who died in domestic fires were trapped in some way. As we know Protected stairways exist to give people time to get out safely. The follwing is a chilling qoute form Colin Meech, a senior fire researcher at the Fire Service College
QUOTE
“in a 3 storey house protected by smoke alarms but which is filling with smoke because doors have been left open, most people would die in their bed without ever never knowing their house was on fire.
Those who are awakened by the alarm only gain the opportunity to make peace with their maker before being lost.”
So my second point is that modern constructions increase the risk of people being trapped by fire.
For firefighters this means that as the proportion of 3 storey houses of this type increase, the number of fires that are in 3 storey houses will also increase. If I am corerect and this means a greater number of people are trapped by fire then it follows that an increased number of firefighters will put their lives on the line to rescue them.
My third point therefore is that given all of the above there is a greater risk of firefighers being killed or injured in such properties.
OK lets now look at closers and their use. I believe that all would agree that if these doors were properly used, lives would be saved (although I could really do with finding some evidence where people have died or survived because doors have been closed or left open - any help greatly appreciated)
The problem with closers is that people hate them because they are just impossible to live with. The issue is not that closers themsleves don't work, if they didn't, no doubt there would be advocates for removing them from commercial buildings too. Combine this with a "it will never happen to me" attitude and you get widespread non-compliance.
My view is that we need to tackle two issues here. The first is to make closers easy to live with. The second is to encourage compliance. The former has been something I have been working on and I believe I have a simple cheap and viable solution. If I can think of something surely ODPM with all its resources could come up with something better as opposed to junking a good safety measure?
Compliance is a tricky one -perhaps. Most people know that if they leave their back door unlocked and get burgled, they would expect a hard time getting their insurance to pay. How many people would say the same about wedging doors or removing closers and then claiming for a fire? Even the insurance companies are unclear on their policy. One that I contacted didn't even know that fire resisting doors were fitted in dwellings!
Perhaps if insurers were more clear on their policies about fire safty provisions and we had a workable solution to make closers easy to live with then we could save some of the 450 lives that are lost every year in domestic fires. It is these issues that are the thrust of my paper and my work.
As mentioned above any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.
My final point is that from what I have seen no-one can say that removing the requirement will save more lives. It might not cost any either but I would challenge anyone to say thay are 100% sure of that.
Sorry for the long email but its hard to make the position in a few words.
Regards, Mark
-
OK mark so what is your simple cheap and viable solution
-
I can find any forum rules that prevent me from mentioninga product here. If there are then perhaps someone could let me know.
In the meantime take a look at www.holdfire.com
The system is quite inexpensive
-
Including, the additional cosy of smoke alarms with relay bases, and interconnecting wiring to same??
-
Mains linked smoke alarms would be fitted as standard anyway so I have not included the cost of these in my cost build.
Given that the alarms are linked, only one relay base is required and I have included this in the cost.
The costs of wiring are also included.
-
Just so Mark doesnt get told off for advertising I'll mention the other poduct that's coming on to the market
www.smoclo.co.uk
-
Interesting, from the limited information currently on the site Smoclo looks like an internal version of the Dorgard.
Considering all the arguements on this site regarding Dorgard, which of the two devices (if any) seem the best?
-
It is hard to tell very much from the cartoon. If smoclo is a similar size to Dorgard then it must be fitted inside the door. It will be tough to ensure that the integrity of the door is not compromised.
Having just taken Holdfire through those tests at Chiltern Fire, I know how tough they are.
The cartoon seems to imply that the door can be left at any angle and will still close.
if this is true and it gets through testing to the releavant standards, then Smoclo will be better than Dorgard. I think it will have to go some to beat Holdfire though but then I'm biassed.
-
Smoclo replaces the headstop on the door frame and apart from the locating bracket which is mortices into the head of the door, the rest of the doors integrity is untouched. It's concealed (apart from a tendon that locates on the hinge edge of the door). The mechanism is triggered by a signal from the mains smoke detector (or power cut). The door can always be opened manually i.e. swing free and once the smoke detector is switched off SmoClo reverts to its normal swing free function.
Also BS EN 1634 to 30 mins
OK fo doors between 750mm and 900mm wide
Doors up for and including 50kg
SmoClo is mains operated, with optional battery back-up and closes the door from any angle.
For those who are interested SmoClo is on display at The Building Centre, Store Street - just off Tottenham Court Road. If anyone would like an introduction please call Royde & Tucker on T: 020 8801 7717 ask for Simon or Mike Stobart. At the moment RT are going through some market research with various sectors and finalising the launch plan with a view to launch the product in Jan 06.
From what I know there's nothing quite like it around - I'd love to hear any different tho.
P.s. Re: Details on the website - next job on the list
-
Interesting.
You will need to get it tested to BS EN 1155 if it is to be specifed.
In what ball park are you expecting the prices to be?
Will you still launch if ODPM decide to do away with closers in dwellings following the current consultation?
-
We don't envisage requiring EN 1155 as it's not a hold open device.
The price we think will be around the £35 mark
Yes, probably with a greater focus on sheltered accommodation etc. We've already had interest from housebuilders in relation to the end users/clients being fed up with their doors slamming all the time - and only that reason, it's early days yet but all the feedback has been positive.
-
Markbr,
With the holdfire there's a wire going between the door and the frame would a conductor hinge be preferable?? They quite expensive tho I think?
-
I was not aware such hinges existed. It might be a good option for new build. Do you know where they can be sourced?
With regard to EN1155, does Smoclo not allow the door to be left open in any position and then close in the event of fire?
Surley this is the same principle as a free-swing closer?
-
Re: power transfer hinge see http://www.ratman.co.uk/H102-0.html
Yes that's exactly the mode of operation. At present we don't believe it's covered by the scope of EN1155 as it never holds the door open but we're seeking clarification form the appropriate bodies as to inclusion/exclusion. If it's found to be covered by 1155 it will of course be tested.
-
Thank for the info on the hinge.
I have a copy of EN1155 and it covers free swing devices. If you don't think your device is covered by the standard then you may need to look into having one written around the product.
For a device that is being used for fire safety most companies will insist on a standard to prove the device operates correctly.
You might like to contact Dorgard who went through a lot of these loops.
Good luck, it sounds like a nice product.
-
Thankyou for the info. We are at present drawing up a PAS for the unit.
Will let you know how it proceeds.
All the best