Electronic door locking devices - link to the the fire alarm?

[wee brian]

now I am confused - how does that work?

[jokar]

Sorry, I did not make that very clear.  A red box was used instead of a green box without a manual overide.  Operated on the FA and a power failure.  A deterent in case the "criminal mind" knew that escape was possible by opening the door.  Mind you if they read this they could get out anyway.  Have I committed an offence?

[wee brian]

So they did have electronic locks? just that they were operated in a secret squirel kind of way.

[kurnal]

I attach extracts of the text copied and pasted from page 128 and 129 of the new factories and warehouses guide.

Electromagnetic devices
These devices comprise a magnet and
a simple fixed retaining plate with no
moving parts and are therefore generally
considered to be more reliable due to
their inherent ‘fail-safe unlocked’ operation.
Electromagnetic locking devices go some
way to addressing the particular concerns
surrounding electromechanical locking
systems. The release of this type of device is
controlled by the interruption of electrical
current to an electromagnet either manually
via a switch or other means, break-glass
point (typically coloured green), or by
linking to the fire-warning and/or detection
system of the premises.
( cut from page 128)

In premises where there may be large numbers
of people, the devices should only be considered
when linked to a comprehensive automatic
fire-detection and warning system in accordance
with BS 5839-1.16 There should be an additional
means of manually overriding the locking
device at each such exit (typically a green
break-glass point). (cut from page 129)

Am I reading too much in to the guidance  if I suggest that it is now ok to omit the green break glass box UNLESS there are a large number of persons present?
 I always thought that it was totally confusing having both a red and green  break glass box at a fire exit door. Which one should I smash? If I have discovered a fire smashing the red one  will both sound the alarm and open the door. If I just smash the green one I may escape but I have not raised the alarm for the benefit of others. So I would much prefer just to provide the red one and now I think the guidance sets a benchmark recognising that this may be an acceptable solution.

[Graeme]

Smash both. Much more fun.

totally agree that having one bgu that does all is simpler.

[David Rooney]

Smash both. Much more fun.

totally agree that having one bgu that does all is simpler.

So what we really need is a double pole BGU that can be wired to break the supply to the lock, and to also signal the fire alarm system.?

[Graeme]

as the green bgu is supposed to be double pole,why are some poular brands only singular?
The older models were but the new only have common,NC and NO with the brand i have seen.

[kurnal]

So what we really need is a double pole BGU that can be wired to break the supply to the lock, and to also signal the fire alarm system.?

David you are exactly right.

My risk assessment for the premises ( see my post of 6 June) where I went for just a red bgu box, double pole of course, and staff training for fire and for incidents other than a fire has brought the following comment from the fire authority-

"The decision to install a red BGU only may create a hazard to the occupants of the building. In the event of a failure of the fire alarm they may be unable to exit the building. The risk assessment should be reviewed"

The alarm is L1 to the current 5839. For events other than fire there are exits at remote ends of the building without any mag locks. (The building which in this case is 200m long). The intermediate fire exits are secured on mag locks linked to the fire alarm and a panic bolt. The red bgu operates the fire alarm, if people follow their training their first action is to sound the alarm, if not already sounding. The alarm will release the mag lock and so only one action will be necessary to open the door- ie the panic bolt.

I had not considered a total failure of the fire alarm system which would prevent the alarm operating but would  maintain the power to the mag lock but Davids suggestion would cater for this event.

Do you think the fire authority are being reasonable in this case?

[Brian Catton]

I can answer the query regarding secure mental health units.

The decision has to be made having regard to the security culture and the level of security required.
By the security culture I mean. Do all staff carry keys to all parts of the unit as part of their normal function. If they do then (provided that the doors can be unlocked from both sides, including final exits) keys are acceptable. To have a situation where all doors unlock on operation of the fire alarm is clearly unacceptable in a secure situation.

If final exit doors open into a secure fenced area then electronic locks may be acceptable.
In one instance I have allowed a 30 second delay to allow staff to get to the door before the patients abscond.

It is also important that where electronic locks unlock on a mains failure there is a battery back up relayed into the fire alarm system to maintain security.

Of course it goes without saying that the green boxes are not installed.

All fire alarm call points are either key operated or in areas under staff control.
As a matter of interest we had a situation recently where a patient knocked a key operated ACP off the wall, the door unlocked and he absconded.

Secure situations have to be assessed individually and there are exceptions in the law to allow flexibility.

[Mr. P]

Had an incident the other day where the door lock system failed to fail safe.  2 foors apprx 10 x 40 m, one stairway (lobbied). Apparently this was 'only the 5th time in 12 years'!  Being an evening call there was ony the locking up person left trying to exit.  My advice was to lock open the doors during normal working hours (and to get the system fixed), but, they said due to certain security issues they were prepared to take the risk.

[Martin Burford]

Mr P
Not sure if you meant to say " they were not prepared to adopt the open-door policy". I would report the matter to the Fire Authority.
Conqueror.

[kurnal]

Mr P
Just out of interest was the device that failed an electronic keep or a magnetic lock?

[Mr. P]

They were not prepared to adopt open door policy even short term.  The device was electronic keep.  My understanding was that the closed circuit kept the door locked, on fail to fail open, with out of work hours being secured by physical lock and key method.

[kurnal]

Thanks Mr P.
I think it is fairly common for electronic keeps, even when intended to fail safe, not to let go. In my experience if there is any maintained pressure on the keep at the same time as the power is disconnected, although the solenoid will release very often the latch which holds the keep closed will stick in position. The pressure may be as a result of someone pushing the door at the same time as the release switch is operated, or by a poorly fitting door where the latch is under constant tension through warping or poor fitting.

[Martin Burford]

Mr P
If this electronic door security system is prone to failures of what ever kind, it is quite clearly not fit for purpose. Does the premises have a fire certificate , if so I say again you have a duty to inform the fire authority, now that this failure has been brought to your notice.
Conqueror.