lecture theatres

[Pip]

Can't say I would have seen it that way-if a hall had say 3 x 200 exit capacity doors and one inward opening door, I would have counted the exit capacity of 2x200 plus 60, or if it had 4 inward opening doors then 3x60 (all assuming TD and location of doors ok)Maybe I got it wrong, but my understanding of ADB seems to suggest that it is no more than 60 using the inward opening door, as opposed to the room capacity.

[CivvyFSO]

If that is the way to do it then this whole thread is a waste of valuable internet space.



(I shall await the obvious replies to this one...)

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal the certificate process was not as ridged as you suggest there was some flexibility and I agree with Phil. I am also with you Pip.

[Ken Taylor]

I must admit to having worked your way too Civvy. Over 60 meant all room exit doors opened outward - unless there was a good and defensible reason to the contrary.

[PhilB]

If that is the way to do it then this whole thread is a waste of valuable internet space.



(I shall await the obvious replies to this one...)

Not a waste at all Civvy the last few posts have been very entertaining. I promise not to go on anymore after this one but I really think the last few posts reinforce my arguement that you cannot have black and white rules, there needs to be an understanding of the general principles of fire safety and then an assessment of each situation taking everything into account. Guides can very useful, but no guide has all the answers.

[Pip]

Well I am not going to argue that you can except limitless inward opening doors, just that I had not seen/heard the restriction of having one inward opening door restricting the exit capacity to 60,regardless of the numbers of other outward opening doors,I do not understand the reasoning behind that.The 'old' yellow guide for places of entertainment did limit a space with a single (outward) opening door to 50 in the smaller halls, and current ADB my understanding of '6.14' -'the door of any doorway or exit should,if reasonably practical,be hung to open in the direction of escape,and should always do so if the number of persons that might be expected to use the door at the time of the fire is more than 60' applies to the door,not the space.A room that had a single inward opening and another outward opening door would still be restricted to 60,because you would still discount the outward opening one for fire(and Iam sure there must be an argument whether that is logical!)-assuming floor space/td/distribution factors ok.But after that surely you must take into account any other exits.How could you have a large hall with a floor capacity of say 1000, 5 double outward opening doors of 300,one single inward opening door, and say they can only have a capacity of 60?I find it difficult to believe that is what you mean so something has been lost in translation!

[CivvyFSO]

I really think the last few posts reinforce my arguement that you cannot have black and white rules, there needs to be an understanding of the general principles of fire safety and then an assessment of each situation taking everything into account. Guides can very useful, but no guide has all the answers.

I do actually agree with you on most points PhilB and I am all for relaxing the guides where possible. I do think what this thread brings up is that in general the inspecting officers will err on the side of caution as a Fire Authority does not want to be on record as saying "We think this is safe" as they do not want to take responsiblity for such decisions due to potential litigation etc.

How could you have a large hall with a floor capacity of say 1000, 5 double outward opening doors of 300,one single inward opening door, and say they can only have a capacity of 60?I find it difficult to believe that is what you mean so something has been lost in translation!

I would have thought that the inward opening door would simply be removed from the MOE. i.e. Not marked up as an exit, giving you full 1000 occupancy still.

[Pip]

I really think the last few posts reinforce my arguement that you cannot have black and white rules, there needs to be an understanding of the general principles of fire safety and then an assessment of each situation taking everything into account. Guides can very useful, but no guide has all the answers.

I do actually agree with you on most points PhilB and I am all for relaxing the guides where possible. I do think what this thread brings up is that in general the inspecting officers will err on the side of caution as a Fire Authority does not want to be on record as saying "We think this is safe" as they do not want to take responsiblity for such decisions due to potential litigation etc.

How could you have a large hall with a floor capacity of say 1000, 5 double outward opening doors of 300,one single inward opening door, and say they can only have a capacity of 60?I find it difficult to believe that is what you mean so something has been lost in translation!

I would have thought that the inward opening door would simply be removed from the MOE. i.e. Not marked up as an exit, giving you full 1000 occupancy still.

yes of course, you would not need to include that door because there is more than enough capacity, but that was not the point.try this one then-there are 3 outward opening doors of 300 exit capacity each ,one inward(60) and a floor capacity of 660-would you reduce the capacity to 60?

[CivvyFSO]

No. I would ignore the inward opening door. I would say that capacity would be 600 and suggest that if they wanted full capacity then they need the inward door propped open to achieve this.

[Pip]

I didn't think it worked like that. I thought that to work strictly to ADB then all inward opening doors would probably be discounted from MOE if more than 60 people are likely to be in the room.

I dont think that is what ADB says-see my earlier quote.
Also, on what basis would you discount the inward opening door-it has already had a  exit capacity 'restriction' put on it because it is inward opening.

[CivvyFSO]

On the basis of an inward opening door is unsuitable on the means of escape if more than 60 occupants are in the room. OR would that be 'if more than 60 people are likely to use it'?

I will admit, I could be totally wrong here, it is just the way I have always thought of it and stand to be corrected.

In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.

FWIW, I really joined this forum to try and benefit from the amount of experience around here, so feel free to "educate" me. I am sure in 10 years time I will still be learning.

[PhilB]

.

In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.

 

Just to throw another spanner in the works Civvy, what if the inward opening door is the door tha most of the occupants used to enter the room? Oooh bloomin flippin eck I've opened up a can of worms here...my sincere apologies to everyone!

[Pip]

On the basis of an inward opening door is unsuitable on the means of escape if more than 60 occupants are in the room. OR would that be 'if more than 60 people are likely to use it'?

I will admit, I could be totally wrong here, it is just the way I have always thought of it and stand to be corrected.

In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.

FWIW, I really joined this forum to try and benefit from the amount of experience around here, so feel free to "educate" me. I am sure in 10 years time I will still be learning.

'On the basis of an inward opening door is unsuitable on the means of escape if more than 60 occupants are in the room.'-if it was the only door then yes, but if there are other doors then not necerssarily

'In my opinion it would make sense to take it away from the MOE plan as there is no way of ensuring that too many people don't attempt to use the door ending up with a 'crush' scenario, the main reason for not having inward opening doors.'-yes a valid point and not to be totally discounted,however, if that logic was applied then all exit doors to each room/hall would have to be the same width-and that is not suggested in any of the guides-infact the point that the 'widest' should be discounted for fire  implies that there can be narrower exits.The method of calculating exit capacity assumes that people will use all the exits evenly-which of course is debateble!
I think whether you count an inward openable door can vary from circumstance, a hall etc could be a good reason to site not to because of a possible 'crush' scenario, but possible different in an office.
I would not say that your views were necerssarily wrong-I wanted to understand your reasoning behind them-for the exact same reasons you read and contibute to this forum-to understand different views and reasoning.When I was a new FSO I was under the wing of 3 long serving  FS station officers and two even longer in the tooth civvy FSO's-and if asked them a question they would all purposely put forward a slightly different view-just to show me there wasn't always just one right or wrong answer!I then had to make up my own mind on what might be the 'answer'-but sure as eggs were eggs it ,at best was only going to be the same as one of their views!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kurnal]

Evacuation shouldnt just be a free for all. We need some management or stewardship to make sure people are directed where to go and which exit to use in these circumstances.

[CivvyFSO]

Just to throw another spanner in the works Civvy, what if the inward opening door is the door tha most of the occupants used to enter the room? Oooh bloomin flippin eck I've opened up a can of worms here...my sincere apologies to everyone!

Clearly the whole building needs to be sprinklered.

Happy now?