Green break-glass boxes

[Clive]

In some cases in residential care/mental health etc. it is desirable to have as few opening devices as possible. Whilst maintaining a high stanadard of fire safety.

As stated in one of the original posts to this thread, you must risk assess the situation, therefore if you don't need it, don't have it. 

My personal view is that there should always be a fire alarm call point linked into the system adjacent to the door with electronic locking ( the method of protecting or operating this can be escalated, should the risk assessment determine it being needed ). So if someone needs to raise the alarm they are not restricted by a locked door.

I agree that we have so many engineered solutions in high occupancy and life risk buildings, that all are initially activated by the alarm system, and now we are saying it is unreliable and cannot be trusted !

I know of one consultant who as said that all bedroom doors with swing free self closers must be kept shut at all times, because the fire alarm system might fail - It must be me, that's missing something !!!!

For those wanting the extra comfort, I believe that 'Ochiki' do a fire alarm call point that is double pole, so you can have it doing both operations i.e. activate fire alarm and it also has a direct link to the lock to open it ( I am not an electrician so don't shoot me if that's wrong ).

[Wiz]

Clive, Even when your risk assesment has determined what you would like to achieve, please remember that there is a BS (7273-4), that provides recommendations for these sort of systems. It states what equipment you need to have, where it should be sited, how it should be interconnected etc .etc.

I know that if I was in a court of law explaining why I had designed/installed any system I would like to have the defence of 'I followed BS to the letter' rather than I did what I thought was right or what I had seen done previously.

I'm not aware of any product from Hochiki that does what you mention, although there are any number of double-pole fire alarm manual call points available. However BS7273-4 does not recognise a combined fire mcp and emergency door release switch. It might seem to be a good idea, some might even consider it to be a clever 'solution', but if it don't comply with BS I wouldn't even consider it!

p.s. being an electrician is not necessarily enough to cope with the modern world of fire alarms, at the very least you now need to be an electricain with an extensive knowledge of fire alarm systems, or preferably, a recognised fire alarm specialist.

[nearlythere]

.......... I did what I thought was right ..........

Wiz. Thats what Tony Bliar said when he and Bush declared war on Iraq and failed to find non existant (surprise, surprise) weapons of mass destruction.
If that excuse is good enough for him I'll let you use it in the court of public opinion.

[Phoenix]

Buzzard and Civvy, you both make good points that support the stance of the BS.  The good thing is that the BS is only a standard and comprises only recommendations; recommendations that should always be followed - unless there are very good reasons for an alternative approach.

Clive's comments

I know of one consultant who has said that all bedroom doors with swing free self closers must be kept shut at all times, because the fire alarm system might fail - It must be me, that's missing something !!!!

indicate what might happen if you rely too heavily on a prescriptive approach.

No, it's not you Clive.

Stu

[Wiz]

.......... I did what I thought was right ..........

Wiz. Thats what Tony Bliar said when he and Bush declared war on Iraq and failed to find non existant (surprise, surprise) weapons of mass destruction.
If that excuse is good enough for him I'll let you use it in the court of public opinion.

Nearlythere, as I said, to avoid problems I wouldn't rely on a 'Blair defence'. My defence, though with no guarantee of success, would always be of ensuring compliance with BS. No use of 'bright ideas' or 'shortcuts' suggested by those who don't realise their possible implications.

However, if I am ever before Justice Nearlythere, then I might use whatever lies will fool most of the general public, as you suggest  

[Clive]

I agree that to follow the BS is the initial route, and the primary defence route. 

But they are not a one size fits all, that is why we risk assess, and provide the most appropriate solution taking 'all' things into consideration. 

When it comes to mental health or secure areas ( mental health or criminal )  , the BS's have to be adapted to suit.  Yes it must be robustly done, and with the knowledge and experience to do that.  The firecode has 'variations' to BSs in it, ( as do BSs themselves) .  The BSs are an acceptable standard, but not a ' must do' ruling in all cases.

As we know a lot of the BSs are one persons or a commitees view on a subject area, not everything in them is backed by science, there is a lot of consensus of opinion, and possibly a few things plucked out of the air.  They will generally cover a lot of projects, but not all.

Don't get me wrong I am not knocking them, and will continue to use them as the benchmark in 98% of cases, but as with all risk assessed and engineered/managed solutions, they are there to assist not bind.

[Wiz]

Clive, as a system designer/installer, if anyone produces an authority in writing for me to deviate from the BS recommendations and totally idemnifies me from the consequences of doing so, and confirms that I have advised them of the consequences of doing so, they can have whatever they are prepared to pay for - and good luck to them !!!  Failing that they get exactly what BS recommends whether they have a 'risk assessed variation', or not!

[Paul2886]

So Wiz,
As a designer, what answer do you give to my question at the very start of this topic. Thanks

[Wiz]

Paul2886, I don't have a definitive answer to your question, unless it is that BS7273-4 naturally assumes that an electric release mechanism is always interfaced to the fire alarm system.

My very first reply to your original post clearly stated that I thought you had raised a very interesting point i.e If an EDR (green box) was correctly installed to a door with an electrcially held locked door, why bother connecting the the release system to the fire alarm system?

The posts went off at tangents at various times, as they are wont to do on this forum, and the reason for the recommendations requiring EDR's, and how and why they should be connected in a certain way, were discussed at length.

I regularly asked other members to comment on why we always linked systems with EDRs to the fire alarm system and asked if anyone was aware of any authorative guidance on this subject.

As far as I recollect no-one really answered your question.

Here is my guess as to how the current typical system set-up has evolved;

When electrically operated locks were first used on doors, someone (probably the fire service), quite understandably, requested that the system was linked to automatically release on a fire alarm condition. At this time there was no requirement for an EDR. probably, no-one thought such an item was required.

At some later time, probably due to a failure on a system somewhere, someone (again, probably the fire service) decided that a secondary means of release of the locking mechanism was required in an emergency, and the EDR was incorporated as an integral part of the system.

At an ever later time, it was decided that the EDR was to be wired as double-pole, for enhanced saftey reasons.

Finally, BS7273-4 was issued with recommendations on how the evolved system above, was to be designed, installed, commissioned and serviced. I don't think it even considered that systems with a correctly wired EDR might not need to be linked to fire alarm systems.

In my opinion, from a safety perspective, the order of importance of the elements of the typical release system are as follows:

1) Good quality reliable release equipment.
2) System wired as 'fail-safe'
3) Emergency Door Release switch
4) Emergency Door release switch wired as 'double-pole'
5) Link to fire alarm system

However, the above is my opinion only.

[Paul2886]

Thanks Wiz,
I appreciate the time you've given to this subject and certainly your last post. Its always great to hear the opinions of others and think you're probably right on how things evolved over the years.

[kurnal]

Came across this thread - cant understand how I missed it last summer.

Dr Wiz the Fire Safety Order Guidance appendix B within each version of the guide gives us the answer to your question in post 5. Here is a heavily edited summary:
Management of electronic door-control devices

The use of such devices may be accepted by enforcing authorities if the responsible person can demonstrate, through a suitable risk assessment for each individual door, both the need and the adequate management controls to ensure that people can escape safely from the premises. In particular:
•Access control should not be confused with exit control. Many devices are available which control the access to the premises but retain the immediate escape facility from the premises.
•In public areas, when push bars are operated on escape doors in conjunction with magnetic locks, they should release the electromagnetic locks immediately and allow the exit doors  to  open.
•The requirement for exit control should be carefully assessed and should not be seen as a substitute for good management of the employees and occupants.
•The device should be connected to the fire warning and/or detection system.
•The device should incorporate a bypass circuit for immediate release on activation of the fire warning and/or detection system. 
•Each door should be fitted with a single securing device.
•The emergency exit doors should be clearly labelled about how to operate them. •
•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.
•There should be an additional means of manually overriding the locking device at each such exit (typically a green break-glass point).


Hopefully that answers that one- but does anybody have a view on PIR operated sliding doors on escape routes - eg at the entrance to a shoppng centre mall.

I was having a  discussion with one of the largest installers of doors in Europe who is adamant that these doors do not require green boxes. You know the set up- sliding doors without a break out facility that are controlled by PIR, designed in accordance with BS7036-2 incorporating a big rubber bungee so they  open on failure of the power supply, linked to the fire alarm system etc. 

I think a green box is required in this case as the PIR is processor controlled so if it crashes the doors will not open unless the power fails or the alarm sounds. Often there is no fire alarm call point for public use near the exit doors for obvious reasons. The installer disagrees and has installed many thousands of doors without it being questioned before.

What do you think?

[nearlythere]

Came across this thread - cant understand how I missed it last summer.

Dr Wiz the Fire Safety Order Guidance appendix B within each version of the guide gives us the answer to your question in post 5. Here is a heavily edited summary:
Management of electronic door-control devices

The use of such devices may be accepted by enforcing authorities if the responsible person can demonstrate, through a suitable risk assessment for each individual door, both the need and the adequate management controls to ensure that people can escape safely from the premises. In particular:
•Access control should not be confused with exit control. Many devices are available which control the access to the premises but retain the immediate escape facility from the premises.
•In public areas, when push bars are operated on escape doors in conjunction with magnetic locks, they should release the electromagnetic locks immediately and allow the exit doors  to  open.
•The requirement for exit control should be carefully assessed and should not be seen as a substitute for good management of the employees and occupants.
•The device should be connected to the fire warning and/or detection system.
•The device should incorporate a bypass circuit for immediate release on activation of the fire warning and/or detection system. 
•Each door should be fitted with a single securing device.
•The emergency exit doors should be clearly labelled about how to operate them. •
•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.
•There should be an additional means of manually overriding the locking device at each such exit (typically a green break-glass point).


Hopefully that answers that one- but does anybody have a view on PIR operated sliding doors on escape routes - eg at the entrance to a shoppng centre mall.

I was having a  discussion with one of the largest installers of doors in Europe who is adamant that these doors do not require green boxes. You know the set up- sliding doors without a break out facility that are controlled by PIR, designed in accordance with BS7036-2 incorporating a big rubber bungee so they  open on failure of the power supply, linked to the fire alarm system etc. 

I think a green box is required in this case as the PIR is processor controlled so if it crashes the doors will not open unless the power fails or the alarm sounds. Often there is no fire alarm call point for public use near the exit doors for obvious reasons. The installer disagrees and has installed many thousands of doors without it being questioned before.

What do you think?

Between 5588 Pt10, 7274 Pt4 & 9999 I can't see a specific requirement for a bypass switch (green box) Kurnal, so long as the other safeguards are provided.
However, under 9999
"......security grilles and shutters (roller, folding or sliding), loading
doors, goods doors, sliding doors and up-and-over doors, unless
they are capable of being easily and quickly opened. If power
operated they should:
1) be provided with a fail-safe system for opening if either the
mains supply and/or any alternative power supply fails;
2) be capable of being easily and quickly opened manually;

Could this also mean that the door should be quickly and easily opened by manual operation of switch?

[Wiz]

Prof., not another document!

Is the Fire Safety Order Guidance appendix B document just guidance, or based on BS recommendations or law?

And when I take it into account, if it is at variance to the guidance document from the Outer Hebrides sheep-shearing station's fire service Assistant Chief Officer's Committee, which do I consider most important?

Personally, I think that the double-pole green emergency door release switch is the most important element of an access system in terms of safety. Any link to a fire detection and alarm system to automatically release the locked door may be a bonus, but if I'm trapped in a building, the ability to be able to use the EDR to make my escape through an otherwise locked door (whether the fire alarm system has operated or not) is paramount.

By the way, I recollect that BS7273 includes sliding doors in it's recommendations, which also include the need for a double-pole EDR. I also seem to remember that nowhere in BS7273 does it specifically state that access control systems should be linked to the fire alarm system, but it does provide recommendations on how it should be linked, if it is!

[CivvyFSO]

Might I just point out:

Guidance and BS aside... From the Fire Safety Order:

(f) emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;

Subject to the usual 'where necessary' condition of course. Read into it what you will.

[FSO]

Out of pure interest......

With the exception of a workplace familiar to employees, how many members of the public can recognise and understand the purpose of the green box?

I may be wrong but I doubt it is a huge percentage.