Fire doors in high rise flats

[Tom Sutton]

I'm currently working in an 18 storey tower block and in particular I'm looking at the flat entrance doors.  They were installed approx 15-20 years ago to the regulations at that time.  The doors are over 44mm and have 50mm fire stops, no intumescent strip and no door closures.  Would these doors fail a fire assessment bearing in mind they exist?

I received to above query and I am interested to see if there is a consensus of opinion on how this should be dealt with.

[Davo]

TW

IMHO, not necessarily.
What about condition and fit? Joiners in those days tended to have more pride in their work.
Do we assume compy is otherwise fine?
Also, more detail would be nice

davo

[wee brian]

They are probably old fire check doors. More than adequate for the job. But I'd stick a door closer on them.

[Martin]

The RP needs to have confidence these doors are likely to hold back a fire or smoke from entering the common area outside the front door. If doors are as described and in reasonable condition ie they are not warped and fit close to the 50mm fire stops then I think the assessor should say the doors are adequate at present  If as common with high rises, a stay put policy is in place, and not so commonly the residents are aware of this, then any fire or smoke will have to pass through a second door to enter a second flat. I don't think self closers needed. People do not in general leave their front doors open!

I suggest the risk assessment  notes  the description of existing doors and advises that if any change repair or refubishment takes place the doors are suitably upgraded. I think a FRS could not sustain an improvment notice legally requiring RP to upgrade these doors as it would go beyond "as far as reasonably practicable".

The original question doesn't describe other features, E. Lighting, protection of M. of E. which may be equally significant.

[kurnal]

I have seen many of these buildings and the standards of workmanship and maintenance are very variable. If the doors are as good as the day they were installed, no damage to the frame and leaf, no more than 3mm gaps at side and top of door and no more than 8-12mm at the bottom, no letter flaps or other holes then fitting a closer would probably be as far as you need to go. If they were installed to BS476 part 8 applicable at the time and are still to that standard then they are probably ok.

Some of the 1960s joinery work was to a very high standard abnd it would be a shame to replace old solid timber doors for the sake of it with a piece of compressed sawdust just because it has a BS476 part 22 certificate. Some of the new stuff may not stand the test of time.

If the doors are not any longer a good fit, or have gaps or damage then seals or repalcement may be needed.

[jayjay]

The old type 25mm rebated fire resisting doors were never required to prevent smoke spread and would fail the current furnace test.

If your assessment considers a need to prevent smoke from entering common areas then 25mm rebates are not reliable for smoke stopping.

I have recently investigated a fire where smoke from a fire in the bin chute cupboard spread past the 25mm  rebated only door then past a corridor 25mm rebated only door into a flat with a 25mm rebated only door and set of the smoke detector within the flat.

These doors had been in the flats since the 60s and where of a reasonbly good fit but the smoke spread did fill the lobby and corridors and was starting to effect the flats before an alarm was raised.

I personaly think in residential situations smoke seals are life savers and should be installed. Smoke is the killer and must be prevented from spreading.

There are smoke seal upgarding methods that can be used, depending on the door fit, that do not require any work on the doors or frames.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the camberwell flats fire on fire and smoke spread in multi storey flats.

If you are certain that there can be no smoke spread with a rebated door then you have made your assessment any doubts then you must advise accordingly.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks guys, pity I never got the consensus I hoped for, so I guess it’s up to this guy to conduct his own risk assessment and be prepared to defend his findings. I will pass on mine and your POV so he can decide what is acceptable and what he can reject.

[kurnal]

TW you never will achieve consensus whilst ever risk assessments remain qualitiative and subjective and those words "as far as is reasonably practicable" remain at the backbone of the legislation

[Tom Sutton]

I agree Kurnal and even in the seventies with prescriptive regime we never fully agreed but what we did agree on was a fire door was not a fire door without a self closer. You can never accept the last person through a door, of a room on fire, will close it behind them and so why fit an expensive fire door without a self closer. I could accept no smoke seals because the power to be for flats believed on the concept of smoke dispersal and that is why you see the 1m2 natural vents in the approach corridors to flats in high rise blocks.

[bungle]

We should also be aware that any self closer will be removed by the occupier the first time the door self closes and locks them out. ...... The old chestnut of doors to flats appears yet again!!

[Tom Sutton]

Fine Bungle if you support that view then don’t ask for half hour doors in the first place because the first time they will be required to fulfil their function it’s more than likely be wide open. I know when ever I did inspections I quite often came back to the office with pocket full standard wedges but it didn’t stop me requiring self closers and there are solutions to this problem.

[bungle]

TW, generally people want their flat doors closed (unlike offices) so I think asking them to be 30 min FR is reasonable , I was just making a point about the self closers.

[kurnal]

Yes people want their doors closed in flats most of the time. But when there is a real fire they will escape to the lobby outside. They wont stay there though. They will very likely go back for Grandmas Heirloom, the budgie, the car keys, the mobile phone or even just to see if it really was as bad as they thought. Thats when they are likely to leave the door open, especially if well meaning neighbours come a long to take a look it there is anything they can do to help.

When we see tragic news stories on the TV, cases in which all that is left is a blackened shell of the building, very often friends and neighbours have made heroic but unsuccessfull attempts to carry out a rescue but have been beaten back by the smoke and flames. Ivariably in carrying out their brave deeds they have left the door open after being beaten back  allowing a plentiful supply of oxygen to the fire.

I often wonder if the lives could have been saved if the doors had remained closed till the arrival of the fire service.

[Tom Sutton]

I withdraw that comment about not requiring half hour doors because that will give everybody in the block more than their 60 mins separation from a fire elsewhere in the block, providing the doors are closed. However what about those in the protected corridor where the fire is, assuming the door of the flat on fire is left open, all they will have is 30mins, their own front door. I believe the powers to be accepted this as a result of research done by BRS which concluded if the door of the flat on fire was left ajar and there was natural ventilation (1m2), the corridor would remain tenable to allow the remaining residents to escape to the stairs. What would happen if the door was left fully open?