single exit premises

[CivvyFSO]

I think that if you can show that you can empty the premises just as quick, and with the same level of risk to occupants as you could with 60 through one door, while avoiding the risk of more than 60 persons going towards an inward opening door then you would have a good case.

[Clevelandfire 3]

If the door opened outwards not a problem!

[nearlythere]

Bear in mind also that persons in a restaurant are in a much different situation to those in a concert. In the event of an evacuation the former, due to the layout of seats and tables, would not make their way to an exit en mass like a standing concert situation where you would expect the simultaneous movement of a large body.
An outward opening door is necessary for the latter in that a door would be difficult to open inwards when there is a mass of people behind it.
Is an easily opened inward opening door not suitable for 60+ persons who are in a more collected state of mind than those attending a rock concert?

[kurnal]

Absolutely right NT.
The guidance on inward opening doors and the sixty limit is a good baseline indicator of what may be safe and appropriate in most circumstances. I am not aware of any empirical data that justifies why it sould be 60 rather than say 47- indeed if we look to the European directives, these state that if a door may be used by more than 50 persons it must open in the direction of escape.

If we have a single exit comprising a pair of 1500mm wide inward opening doors are we still suggesting that the limit of 60 should be applied?  

If the risk of panic is unlikely to occur because of the character of the building users or the way they are controlled, if we could show that the fire growth would be slow and would be likely to be detected at an early stage and procedures are such that an early evacuation would be initiated,  if you can show that persons will not all arrive at the door at the same time, then with such justifications it is safe to vary from the guidance.

[Mr. P]

So, assuming the 1500mm opening as a double leaf, each side opening inwards, as it's one exit, we don't discount it (as you would discount largest of multi exits), the premises have afd, if the floor area would allow 120 pers and they would could all reasonably safely get out before being overcome by effects of fire,...?

[kurnal]

Never say never. But I had a little more in mind than your premises have AFD and people can get out before they will be overcome.
It needs an analysis of risk and management - like consideration of the use of the room, the location of the exit with regard to internal and external risks,  the level of management and supervision, the justification for the choice of alarm system, and the time to detection, time to respond, management response to alarm and detailed analysis of the movement of people with consideration of their likely behaviour. 

[Davo]

Prof

I hear what you are saying.

However, I have my worries.  

Some of those criteria are fixed ie AFD, some variables can be supported by past research, but what about those other variables eg level of management and supervision?

Suppose new owners take over? Suppose tables get moved and partly block the exit route?

What about an automatic shutter for the kitchen hatch?

davo

[boroboy]

Hi everyone and thanks for all the views, its appreciated.  I didn't measure to the nearest inch but the premises will hold 150-170 using .5 floor space factor and .3 for a small area around the bar area.  The current landlord tells me that in the past he has had this number of persons in.  The kitchen is as far away as you can get from the exits and to put a 1 hr door on emd/double swing is not a problem.  The problem still remains that the 2 exit doors are within 45 degrees of each other.  It may be possible to get the inward opening one reversed, but as I said this is a listed building in a small market town so I dont know whether we can get the authorities ok for that?  The ceiling whilst not particularly low is a normal height and you cannot reasonably include that in a compenstory feature argument.  I have asked for a meeting with the SFPO or whatever they are called these days.  It will be a restaurant type wine bar premises and my guess it will become quite popular and trendy due to the young lady who is running it, she seems very switched on to these things.  Although the various guides say 60 persons for a room with one (because of the 45 degree rule), i do feel that this is onerous and in my previous life would have been ameaniable to increasing the numbers above 60 with a reasonable argument, which is what I am attempting to do.
It has been briefly considered about getting another door in one part of the premises away from the existing doors, but that would exit into a corridor that leads/exits from the flats above.  This would though impact on the business plan as it would take out table spaces.

Cheers everyone and anymore views welcome

[nearlythere]

Hi everyone and thanks for all the views, its appreciated.  I didn't measure to the nearest inch but the premises will hold 150-170 using .5 floor space factor and .3 for a small area around the bar area.  The current landlord tells me that in the past he has had this number of persons in.  The kitchen is as far away as you can get from the exits and to put a 1 hr door on emd/double swing is not a problem.  The problem still remains that the 2 exit doors are within 45 degrees of each other.  It may be possible to get the inward opening one reversed, but as I said this is a listed building in a small market town so I dont know whether we can get the authorities ok for that?  The ceiling whilst not particularly low is a normal height and you cannot reasonably include that in a compenstory feature argument.  I have asked for a meeting with the SFPO or whatever they are called these days.  It will be a restaurant type wine bar premises and my guess it will become quite popular and trendy due to the young lady who is running it, she seems very switched on to these things.  Although the various guides say 60 persons for a room with one (because of the 45 degree rule), i do feel that this is onerous and in my previous life would have been ameaniable to increasing the numbers above 60 with a reasonable argument, which is what I am attempting to do.
It has been briefly considered about getting another door in one part of the premises away from the existing doors, but that would exit into a corridor that leads/exits from the flats above.  This would though impact on the business plan as it would take out table spaces.

Cheers everyone and anymore views welcome

If you cannot open the door out then, if you have room, you could provided a lobby with outward an opening door. The outer door would be locked in the open position during material times. This is a normal situation as a the main entrance door from a street cannot open out across the pavement for obvious reasons.

[AnthonyB]

Whilst everyone is talking about the actual door and that the kitchen is far away, what is the nature of the floor, wall and ceiling coverings/linings and furnishings?

Having just finished reading the (very very long) Stardust enquiry the British Library sent me, it struck me that it's all very well saying you will not normally get a mass exodus situation in a restaurant, but if if there are problems with rate of fire spread due to the state of linings etc. (which can get changed over time) you could have a nasty situation for which a single inwards opening doorway could be problematic (like it was at Stardust exit 2).

There are so many factors to consider if you are going to truly risk assess a deviation from benchmark standards.

[nearlythere]

Whilst everyone is talking about the actual door and that the kitchen is far away, what is the nature of the floor, wall and ceiling coverings/linings and furnishings?

Having just finished reading the (very very long) Stardust enquiry the British Library sent me, it struck me that it's all very well saying you will not normally get a mass exodus situation in a restaurant, but if if there are problems with rate of fire spread due to the state of linings etc. (which can get changed over time) you could have a nasty situation for which a single inwards opening doorway could be problematic (like it was at Stardust exit 2).

There are so many factors to consider if you are going to truly risk assess a deviation from benchmark standards.

I think the point of the discussion was doors and direction of swing under the circumstances. The original poster did state that "The only risk is a kitchen which is at the back of the premises remote from the exits." Naturely consideration would be given to surface finishes and other relevant issues whether the doors opened in or out.
Did the Stardust not have a number of locked final exits?

[AnthonyB]

Only two at the most remote location from the fire. others had chains draped over, but unlocked.

A key problem was that the spread of flame cut down time to escape and the large number of people using the nearest exit (the main entrance) which opened inwards couldn't get out - it was not crushing that killed, but a delayed escape time coupled with rapid fire and smoke spread.

[nearlythere]

Certainly the replication of the Stardust fire utilising the same types of surface linings clearly demonstated the speed of development of the fire. We only usually hear about those fatally injured in such tragedies. There must be many many more who are maimed for life both physically and mentally.