BS EN 179 2008

[Tom Sutton]

The door latches closed with a handle on either side for entry/ egress there is also a thumb turn to secure the door from inside. If trying to get out in an emergency the thumb turn needs to be unlocked before the student can use the door handle to get out.

      1. Does this create a dual action and therefore does not comply with EN 179 for single action escape?
      2  Is this method of securing a student’s bedroom acceptable in these days of FRA?
      3. Do you accept the manufacturers the ten digit code which should indicate if it is suitable?

[kurnal]

1`- Its horses for courses. In many situations a dual action will be fine- eg small number of persons familiar with building
2- Absolutely fine
3- Not sure what you mean. Is this on the outside of a door to give security and control access but with a lever handle on the inside for escape?

[Tom Sutton]

The code is a marking on the door furniture that is part of the appropriate BS EN,  which interprets the test results. Check out http://www.edwardsteelandcraig.co.uk/documents/BSEN179-ESC.pdf.

[kurnal]

Once again you teach me something new Thomas. Not sure how useful it is but new all the same.

The 10 digit number assumes the complete door assembly is installed tested maintained and repaired in accordance with a QA process and I guess is invalid as soon as someone replaces a lock, hinge or screw.

Seems a good idea but who will record and update the code, or use OEM materials to maintain the door assembly?

[Tom Sutton]

My only concern is does the door fastening described above conform to BS EN179, how the code is used is for you guys to sort out. My reasoning is if the door handle has a label with the code and other information then its a good chance it does comply.

[nearlythere]

If specifically asked Thomas I would assess a particular locking device on the ability of the occupant to use it. Generally speaking one would expect the average person to be able to carry out a basic operation of a simple locking device even if it requires manipulation of two devices but so long as it does not require the use of a key or even a digital lock in some situations.
You have to bear in mind that there could be persons who because of limited physical ability or disability cannot manipulate even what we might consider a simple device and really the type of device which should be provided would be by risk assessment.
When we talk about an easy open device we have to consider the type of person it has to be easily opened by.

[kurnal]

I think what NT and I are saying is that you can have as many prescriptive detailed and complicated standards as you like, they must seem a good idea and necessary to who ever wrote them but the fire risk assessment is all about functional requirements rather than prescriptive ones and we should not need to refer to a long string of numbers to decide.

Is the door and its operating hardware of suitable size and opening for the persons who may need to use it in an emergency, and can it be easily and immediately opened without the use of a key, with a single manipulation of a single device?