Author Topic: lecture theatres (Read 39653 times)

ps · « **on:** February 20, 2007, 04:11:05 PM »

Hi in a lecture theatre, designed to seat 150, currently has 4 exits, two at the bottom, two at the top, each leading to a separate fire protected place of safety, BUT all the doors open inwards......I'm pushing for them all to be turned around so that they lead outwards - ie as part of the escape route....I'm being told they must be OK because they were built that way...

Should I be sticking to my guns, or am I worrying about nothing...

Any views appreciated, all the guidance tells me I'm right (if I'm reading it right) but I'm happy to be shot down in flames so to speak!

kurnal · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2007, 04:32:14 PM »

You should follow the guidance unless there is an over riding reason why it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

It could be critical to the heritage of the building, or steps or something similar.
In these cases you would then have to put additional risk control measures in place to ensure that the inward opening exit did not pose a hazard in case of fire.

Such as stewards to hopefully open them before the mass of people arrived. There may be arguments based on risk, potential growth and development of any fire, tenability of the lecture theatre etc. But the safest and best way is to comply if you can.

jasper · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2007, 04:37:46 PM »

stick with ur guns

jokar · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:32:01 PM »

Just a quick question, are the stewards there when the theatre is open and how does the Fire Alarm work. If it is staff only alarm then it may be a suitable arrangement in that the staff will open the doors prior to any movement of the individuals. Opening the doors the other way may cause you problems with corridor or exit widths. You cannot allow a door to open into an escape route and block it off.

PhilB · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:43:22 PM »

Risk appropriate chaps come on!!!!! What are the ignition sources and fire load?? What is the ceiling height?? Is a fire likely to grow and develop sufficient smoke to compromise escape before the occupants can safely leave??

In the vast majority of lecture theatres I can think of there would be no problem with the doors opening inwards.

kurnal · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:49:52 PM »

I was in one lecture theatre in the cotswolds once that actually became a private theatre for an annual pantomime. Mind you the rest of the year was a bit of a panto too.

PhilB · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:52:17 PM »

No one died though Kurnal....so it must be safe...and they had sliding doors for means of escape from the bars!!!!! (Actually a few did die on the stage as I remember)

wee brian · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:41:58 PM »

Its a risk - first principal of prevention is avoid risks - turn the doors around.

Unless there is a good reason not to.

PhilB · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:07:36 AM »

I can't believe what I'm reading on here! Have we not moved forward or are we all still hugging codes!!! The good reason not to Wee Brian may be that there will be no benefit from turning the doors around.

Why do we want doors opening in direction of escape? To prevent delay in evacuating large numbers who may all reach the exits together. I can't see a problem in most of the lecture theatres I have been to.

We are talking 150 max persons. Presumably they are seated in rows, they need to file out into the gangways they will not be arriving at the exits in a stampeding hoard.

The most likely ignition source would be an electrical fault. Source of fuel probably a projector or computer. The fire will be slow developing, it will generate vast amounts of visible smoke, the occupants will be awake (well maybe not!) hopefully sober, probably familiar, probably farely disciplined.

You should take all of the above and more into account and then advise accordingly.

Or ,as a few on here seem to advocate, you could tell them to reverse the doors because the guide says so. Which is the most professional approach I wonder?

If there is good reason, turn them around. If not don't waste peoples money.

kurnal · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:02:50 PM »

You are making lots of assumptions Phil.

If you follow your logic through you will have to set rules on how the lecture theatre is to be used to ensure that the risk remains at the level you saw at the time of your assessment. Yes it may be the OHP going up in smoke - or it could be the lab assistant dropping the winchester full of pentane.

Is there no place at all for benchmark standards? Some basic design and management rules usually learned from other peoples mistakes that will ensure that that tragedies and accidents are not repeated?

(I am looking for a new car- trying to find one without a handbrake because I never park on a hill.)

No, theres some universal basic common sense principles that make buildings safe to occupy and that should always be followed unless there is good reason not to. Your hypothesis could be seen as seeking not to put any control measures in place unless you percieve a hazard first.

messy · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:06:06 PM »

I totally agree with Phil on this.

There's no point having a risk based approach if it's going to be based on a prescriptive ethos or else we could all end up completing risk assessments over the phone or internet

Other points to be considered for an educational lecture theatre (over a cinema/theatre) is the familiarity of the routes by the occupants and the fact that they are not so likely to have visited the pub/theatre bar prior to the performance (athough if the Cotswold example is anything to go by, they may be hungover!)

Kurnal

Surely you don't need control measures (indeed it's impossible to set the level of any control measure) until a hazard or risk has been quantified

val · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:41:44 PM »

I must apologise to Phil after accusing him of being a closet prescriptionist. Clearly its worse than that.
Fools logic would, in our magic risk based world, suggest we could lock fire exits, have travel distances of 500m in athletic clubs and have no AFD in well constructed sleeeping accomodation, (good fire doors, limited fire load...will probably burn out)!

This lecture theatre may not be the best example, with limited numbers and 4 exits but the approach that seems to be argued here is that is we can't quantify a significant risk then we don't need to worry about it 'cause it must be trivial.

Risk based approach may allow us to tinker round the edges, extend T/D here, accept a lessar standard fire alarm there, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I believe, though cannot find the reference that outward opening doors grew from a fire at a christening party in the USA. Only about 400 dead. Should keep the risk statisticans busy even if it was 70 years ago.
Maybe a certain technical library can find the evidence and beat google for once.

kurnal · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:48:52 PM »

messy
I agree provided you are carrying out your activities in an open field.

The fact that we are putting people inside a combustible box that will contain smoke and products of combustion, and will limit peoples options for moving away from a potential fire making them all move through the same narrow gap in the wall means we then have to consider adopting standard risk control measures such as fire resistance of the structure, control the linings, means of escape, fire alarm, lighting, FFE etc . Outward opening doors are one of these benchmarks that should be incorporated unless there are over riding resons why not.

As it happens a local fire officer has recently, as part of the Buildng regs consultation, required one of my clients to produce a specific fire risk assessment justifying why an inward opening exit door door should be permitted in a new warehouse proposal. I have produced the document following similar principles to those outlined by Phil which the officer has accepted.

wee brian · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:21:21 PM »

I think Phil has been kidnapped by aliens - this guy is obviousely an imposter.

I'm all for flexibility but swithcing doors is easy and cheap - The principles of prevention are clear. However small a risk may be if it can reasonably be avoided then thats what should be done.

ps · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2007, 08:05:33 AM »

Wow....thanks for such a full response from all, however the variety of views have thrown me somewhat, as I read through each, I find myself agreeing with the author, then moving to the next...then the next...

I realise that this is in part due to the imcomplete information I provided. If it helps, sometimes the lecture theatre can be full with memebers of the public, currently no stewards are appointed, and (one of the main reasons I want to stick to my guns) is that at present, the inward opening doors also enable lazy lecturers NOT TO UNCHAIN some of the existing inward opening doors at the back of the theatre. They are currently unlocked "for security" and scarily, often left locked whilst the theatre is in use.

I can sort of understand the risk based approach of no absolutes, where there is a strong safety culture and management ethos to back it up, but that's simply not the case in the place described as yet!

On balance, I think, despite the cost (and that's the current basis for not complying) I'll stick to my guns...

Many thanks again all

News:

Author Topic: lecture theatres (Read 39653 times)

messy