Ugrading of Fire doors, listed building

[nearlythere]

Have a look at this companies website. Was at a brigade fire safety seminar the other day and these were one of the speakers. I was aware of their products but they have seemed to have increased their range recently. They have just brought out a hinge that doubles up as a S/C that may over come one of your problems. Obviously it's not a rising butt hinge.

http://www.envirograf.com/

Looks like one that would take your heels off if you didn't get through the door quickly enough.

[twistedfirestopper]

Well that qustion was raised. Apparently it replicates any speed that an over head SC can do, also how tight it shuts on the frame can be regulated as well. But i have yet to see one in action yet!

[CivvyFSO]

If the warning and detection gives a benefit for being in place ie a cat M system would normally suffice, then it could act as a compensatory feature for the doors

Just to be awkward:

If a cat M is truly suitable then you are talking about somewhere where it is expected that some person will see a fire and raise the alarm. There will be no unoccupied rooms that can present a risk to the escape route. If this is the case, then what is the benefit of detection?

[Davash]

CivvyFSO,

Some rooms may be unoccupied for storage purposes including the basement areas, so detection would be prudent.

Davash

[Fishy]

English Heritage have a guidance note on this exact topic - downloadable from:

http://fred.english-heritage.org.uk/project.asp?pkey=59&visitorCategory=Student&keyword=Compartmentation%7C&word=

[CivvyFSO]

CivvyFSO,

Some rooms may be unoccupied for storage purposes including the basement areas, so detection would be prudent.

Davash

Which is still something that is necessary then, not something that can be classed as a compensatory feature?

[Auntie LIn]

Davash - if you want some help/advice about upgrading historic doors, send me an e-mail and I'll try and give you what help I can.   However, your colleagues seem to think that you can do a risk assessment which will achieve compliance without interfering with the doors so if you or they are happy to put a name to this then obviously that's the best way to go.

[ST1878]

Please see the recent report of CLG on an Article 36 determination at:
 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/heritagehotel
Very relevant to discussion topic

[kurnal]

Very interesting determination. And very worrying for the future of fire risk assessment when the enforcing authority uses language like this:


"The corridors must be protected from the effects of a fire in a bedroom, in order to allow persons to escape in order for Article 14 (2) (b) to be satisfied.  The guidance requires every corridor which serves part of the means of escape to be protected routes with 30 minutes of fire resistance. "

The guidance requires. Hmmm.

[nearlythere]

Very interesting determination. And very worrying for the future of fire risk assessment when the enforcing authority uses language like this:


"The corridors must be protected from the effects of a fire in a bedroom, in order to allow persons to escape in order for Article 14 (2) (b) to be satisfied.  The guidance requires every corridor which serves part of the means of escape to be protected routes with 30 minutes of fire resistance. "

The guidance requires. Hmmm.

Diluting the Risk Assessment process and removing the common sense approach I feel.
Mind you "The corridors must be protected from the effects of a fire in a bedroom, in order to allow persons to escape...." does not mean fire doors. I think we are seeing the effects of inexperience in Fire Safety Depts where the codes are the only point of reference.

[ST1878]

Regardless of the possibility of "inexperience" of the FS department concerned, do not the findings of the determination support their view?

[kurnal]

Regardless of the possibility of "inexperience" of the FS department concerned, does not the findings of the determination support their view?

Yes. But determinations invariably do. It takes a lot of research to find a case where the S of State found in favour of the appellant.

Sir Ken has played a clever role here. The determination is clearly tied to the individual circumstances of the case and nobody can disagree with his summary. It is easy to say in this specific case that to fit seals and upgrade existing doors would be fairly straightforward and undoubtedly would reduce the level of risk - so therefore the argument of ALARP wins the day.
The appellant has used most of the arguments I would have used in analysing strengths and weaknesses of the case against the benchmark standard of the guidance. Perhaps more could have been made of the alleged high ceilings and fire loading - a simple CFD simulation may have helped to win the case.

Main lesson learned- once again-maybe that if you are convinced you are right, negotiation with the enforcing brigade is the only way to succeed in winning your point because once it goes to the the S of State you have blown any chance of winning your argument?. 

[John Webb]

I am aware that English Heritage are aware of this recent and first determination of an appeal regarding a heritage building and are trying to elicit further information regarding the technical advice offered to the CLG.

[colin todd]

Is it being missed that the determination says that the doors would have given only about 10 minutes fire resistance and that there were gaps because of ill fit through which smoke would pass? This is not a case of old but well fitting BS 459-3 doors needing upgraded from 20 minutes to 30 minutes from the sound of it.

[kurnal]

You make a very good point Colin. Sometimes we can fail to spot the wood for the trees.

There are many red herrings in the account of the determination and one of the biggest is this business of 10 minutes, half an hour etc. We all tend to treat the BS476 as a holy grail but of course it is a test against a standard fire under controlled conditions in a laboratory.

Any fire in real life will have totally different temperature / heat flux/time characteristics and the only reference to time that is relevant is whether tenable conditions will be maintained in the corridor for long enough for persons to escape, allowing a safety margin for slow response, alcohol etc. And as you say the fit of the door is critical to this- and of course whether the door will be open or closed.

Personally I should have taken a more considered view of the evidence presented, but I must admit the red mist starts to come down when people start using words like guidance and requirements in the same sentence.

I still stand by my view that determination is a lost cause though. Right or wrong the S of State cannot find in favour of the appellant. To do so is likely to undermine the enforcing authority, bring about civil claims and a need for review of guidance - all calls on the public purse and so easily avoidable through expedient handling of political authority.