ADB table 1 and paragraph 5.42 and 5.43

[kurnal]

Please can anyone clarify something that has got me going round in circles.

In a proposed mixed use development, one of the lifts in each of three medium rise  residental blocks descends to the basement car park where in accordance with 5.43 there will be a protected lobby.

I had specified initially an FD30S door to create the lobby and FD30 door (the lift sliding door) to the protected shaft. The BCO has refused to accept the lift  door as part of the protected lobby approach as it has no smoke performance and is requiring a double lobby with two FD30S doors between the lift and the car park in addition to the FD30 lift cage door.

Now what is really puzzling me is that a further residential block linking to the same car park  is higher and requires a firefighting shaft with firefighting lift. Now here the car park has a single FD60S door at basement level leading into the firefighting lobby which contains a firefighting lift. But a single door here is fine?

Have I got this wrong and missed something or should I dig my heels in?
The BCO will not accept single FD60 door in lieu of the two FD30 doors because he says it will be difficult for wheelchair users.

[CivvyFSO]

Do all the shafts go right down to the basement? If so he may be looking for better protection to one, since there should be at least one shaft that doesn't connect to basement level. (ADB 4.43) (2.51 may also be of some relevance since residential was mentioned) But if this is the case he should be stating his reasons better.

If not then he may use the wheelchair users argument to the effect of: You are providing at least one staircase without a FD60S door so access for disabled is ok, but if you use FD60S on both then a wheelchair user has no alternative but to use a FD60S door for access. i.e Reasonable adjustments have not been made to allow access.

Personally, I would rather see the true lobby created for the firefighting shaft, and the FD60S on the alternative. Gives that slightly enhanced protection to the stair that is most likely to be in use longer during a fire, would help firefighting operations in the basement, and also subject to risk assessment (of course) could mean the firefighting lift is allowed to be used to bring mobility impaired persons up from the basement car park in the event of an emergency.

[nearlythere]

Please can anyone clarify something that has got me going round in circles.

In a proposed mixed use development, one of the lifts in each of three medium rise  residental blocks descends to the basement car park where in accordance with 5.43 there will be a protected lobby.

I had specified initially an FD30S door to create the lobby and FD30 door (the lift sliding door) to the protected shaft. The BCO has refused to accept the lift  door as part of the protected lobby approach as it has no smoke performance and is requiring a double lobby with two FD30S doors between the lift and the car park in addition to the FD30 lift cage door.

Now what is really puzzling me is that a further residential block linking to the same car park  is higher and requires a firefighting shaft with firefighting lift. Now here the car park has a single FD60S door at basement level leading into the firefighting lobby which contains a firefighting lift. But a single door here is fine?

Have I got this wrong and missed something or should I dig my heels in?
The BCO will not accept single FD60 door in lieu of the two FD30 doors because he says it will be difficult for wheelchair users.

Ask him/her to clarify exactly why. You are entitled to a full, precise and valid explanation. The wheelchair bit, to me, is a load of waffle unless he/she can show this to be the case. It is easier for anybody, regardless of their ability, to negotiate one door rather than two. Weight cannot be the reason unless he took the door off and weighed it.
Is it a lift shaft only, containing no stairway?

[kurnal]

Thanks Gentlemen
No there are two staircases in each block and only one stair and one lift in each block descend to the basement- in seperate shafts to seperate lobbies in the basement.

The lift shaft is in a lobby separate to the staircase at all levels bar the ground floor. At gound floor main entrance level the foot of the stair and lift are side by side.

The BCO says that the lobby requirement at basement level is a requirement under B1 and particularly refers to table B1 in respect of the lift cage door. He says this door is part of the lift lobby and so needs to be FD30S which obviously cannot be achieved by the  standard lift sliding doors which are FD30 but cannot achieve the S rating.  

As I see it the lift doors provide protect the shaft and FD30 is OK.

[nearlythere]

Is it obvious that the lift doors do not provide a smoke seal?
Why do you say they are not S ?
If they are sliding can they not be modified to S ?
Could the manufacturer or installer modify them?

[kurnal]

The doors are only manufactured to FD30 as most lift doors are - this is all that is normally required under ADB table B1.
I guess even if the sliding doors could be manufactured to provide smoke sealing performance it could not be maintained as such in the long term. In any case smoke seals on lift doors are not even a requirement under BS5588 part 5 for firefighting lifts. These are just  pasenger lifts bar one.

[saddlers]

Please can anyone clarify something that has got me going round in circles.

In a proposed mixed use development, one of the lifts in each of three medium rise  residental blocks descends to the basement car park where in accordance with 5.43 there will be a protected lobby.

I had specified initially an FD30S door to create the lobby and FD30 door (the lift sliding door) to the protected shaft. The BCO has refused to accept the lift  door as part of the protected lobby approach as it has no smoke performance and is requiring a double lobby with two FD30S doors between the lift and the car park in addition to the FD30 lift cage door.

Now what is really puzzling me is that a further residential block linking to the same car park  is higher and requires a firefighting shaft with firefighting lift. Now here the car park has a single FD60S door at basement level leading into the firefighting lobby which contains a firefighting lift. But a single door here is fine?

Have I got this wrong and missed something or should I dig my heels in?
The BCO will not accept single FD60 door in lieu of the two FD30 doors because he says it will be difficult for wheelchair users.

My opinion would be that Table B1 only specifies an FD30(s) on a lobby "approach" to a lift shaft (which I would have defined as being the first door of the two). In every other scenario there is no requirement for smoke seals to be installed to the lift doors. Technically on sliding lift doors this is a problem to achieve.

If the lift was located within the protected stair, the lift door would only need to be an FD30 (para 5.43), therefore the total separation would be an FD30(s) and an FD30, so smoke would have to go through an FD30(s) and two FD30 doors to penetrate the stair. In your scenario it would be no worse and the risk would be less, because as you point out the lift is separated from the stair which is the area we do not want the smoke to penetrate, so smoke would have to pass through an FD30(s) then two FD30 doors, and even at this point it would not be in the stair!!!

My next view would be that again as you say this provision would not be required if it was a firefighting shaft in which the lift will still be in use in fire conditions. If this lift is not forming part of the fire fighting shaft it will not be in use in a fire scenario, so its protection is surely less important.

"The BCO will not accept single FD60 door in lieu of the two FD30 doors because he says it will be difficult for wheelchair users" - as long as you can achieve the 30N opening force as recommended in BS8300 there is no restriction on the weight, size or any other factor of the door!!

[kurnal]

Thanks Saddlers thats how I see it too. Many thanks to all for your help. Time to dig my heels in I think.

[nearlythere]

Please can anyone clarify something that has got me going round in circles.

In a proposed mixed use development, one of the lifts in each of three medium rise  residental blocks descends to the basement car park where in accordance with 5.43 there will be a protected lobby.

I had specified initially an FD30S door to create the lobby and FD30 door (the lift sliding door) to the protected shaft. The BCO has refused to accept the lift  door as part of the protected lobby approach as it has no smoke performance and is requiring a double lobby with two FD30S doors between the lift and the car park in addition to the FD30 lift cage door.

Now what is really puzzling me is that a further residential block linking to the same car park  is higher and requires a firefighting shaft with firefighting lift. Now here the car park has a single FD60S door at basement level leading into the firefighting lobby which contains a firefighting lift. But a single door here is fine?

Have I got this wrong and missed something or should I dig my heels in?
The BCO will not accept single FD60 door in lieu of the two FD30 doors because he says it will be difficult for wheelchair users.

My opinion would be that Table B1 only specifies an FD30(s) on a lobby "approach" to a lift shaft (which I would have defined as being the first door of the two). In every other scenario there is no requirement for smoke seals to be installed to the lift doors. Technically on sliding lift doors this is a problem to achieve.

I think you are chancing your arm by describing the lobby approach as just being the first door of the lobby for smoke sealing.

[saddlers]

Nearly,
If it was any other "lobby" situation I would agree, but a lift shaft does not require smoke seals in most scenarios. Practically in this situation, you are talking about smoke penetrating an FD30(s), then a lift landing door, entering a shaft and having to collect in the shaft then re-emerging from a lift shaft landing door on the top storey, then back out through an FD30(s) before it enters someones escape route.

[BCO]

My opinion is dig your heels in (if you haven't already). The request for 2 FD30s doors before the lift FD30 doors is incorrect.
The best defense (as Saddlers says) is that it would be ok have the lift in the base of the protected stair and therefore only protected by one FD30s door.
Other defenses may include giving other examples of where lobbies are required in ADB or 5588. e.g. a stair requiring the additional provision of protected lobby (4.34) because it serves a part of the building over 18m,or when it is a single stair condition, it doesn’t require 3 doors before the stair, just an additional door and the stair door.
Or, why do all example diagrams in both suites of guidance show a lobby as the addition of another singe door, added to the element which is to be protected, whether it is a stairway or a corridor. Additionally Appendix B recognises that lift doors can not be smoke sealed, FD only doors are listed for each scenario. The risk of smoke spread that is created by the lack of smoke seals is then mitigated in the general provisions (5.40-5.45) by the requirement to provide an additional FD30s lobby in some conditions.
If all that fails talk to his boss!