The need for intumescent seals on fire doors

[wee brian]

The Building Regs only apply when you are doing building work or a change of use (as defined blah blah)

Fitting new fire doors = do it properly to recognised standard

Risk assessment in exisitng building = do what's reasonable, taking into acount the actual fire risk specific to the premises (ADB just makes assumptions based on purpose groups).

[Midland Retty]

Oh no we are not .
Retty you can duck and weave as much as you like there is other fire safety legislation than the Fire Safety Order that covers life safety from fire.  Nowhere have you said that you were only wishing to discuss the Fire Safety Order definitions.

Indeed the Building Regulations 2000 are explicit- look at the explanation in respect of the limitation on requirements on page 5 of ADB which takes considerations of life safety far beyond the "Relevant Person" concept of the FSO. Its the Building Regs table B1 that sets out standards for fire doors.

I reckon you owe me a pint for leading you back towards the straight and narrow.

There is no ducking, diving or any pints on offer Prof.

As wee B has stated ADB applies to alterations / change of use / new builds

I have never argued that if you are installing new doors they should be of the correct standard. I am in full agreement that if new doors are going in they should include intumescent strips as that is reasonable.

Im talking here of existing doors and in particular the financial implications and reasonableness of insisting that the doors must be upgraded simply because they dont have intumescent strips.

And I still havent had any answer that convinces me that intumescent strips are in most situations for life safety protection, because if people are still in the building by the time they have activated (except for places with stay put policies, excessive evacuation times that is) something has gone horribly wrong.

So if you would like to  lead me to the bar and get the beers in I will happily accept your humble apology.

[CivvyFSO]

If we require 30min doors to protect some escape routes why do work around the 2.5 - 3 mins evacuation principle, even when detection is installed?

It is not a 30 minute door. It is a FD30 door.  

If everyone always got out in 2.5 minutes we wouldn't really need much of a fire & rescue service would we? It gives a nice margin of safety to allow for rescues, first-aid, the bloke who is sat on the loo reading the Daily Sport, etc.

[CivvyFSO]

because if people are still in the building by the time they have activated (except for places with stay put policies, excessive evacuation times that is) something has gone horribly wrong.

Maybe they are that little bit extra for the times when something has gone horribly wrong?

[nearlythere]

If we require 30min doors to protect some escape routes why do work around the 2.5 - 3 mins evacuation principle, even when detection is installed?

It is not a 30 minute door. It is a FD30 door.  

If everyone always got out in 2.5 minutes we wouldn't really need much of a fire & rescue service would we? It gives a nice margin of safety to allow for rescues, first-aid, the bloke who is sat on the loo reading the Daily Sport, etc.

Awfully big margin. What would that equate to percentage wise?

[Tom Sutton]

Retty would you accept if you do not have I/S then you have a FD20, maximum and not a FD30 door, but it may be adequate in some circumstances.

[AnthonyB]

I don't require all doors to be upgraded in one go - it all depends on the usage & layout of the premises, the expectations of the door, the occupancy type & numbers, the condition of the doorset, etc

I do always mention that they are not to the latest spec and may not perform as well and that they should be upgraded progressively (ad-hoc rater than within a time limit) and not replaced like for like (i've seen enough examples of a door being replaced due to wear and tear, but instead of a current FD30/FD30S doorset just the FD30 leaf is put back in still relying on a tight fit to a 25mm rebate).

If there is a high risk occupancy that requires immediate or scheduled upgrade then I rarely just specify seals anyway and often require upgrade FD30S with combination seals and smoke brushes as it's the smoke spread that is the first concern and the cost differential isn't too much in the grand scale of things.

[CivvyFSO]

Awfully big margin. What would that equate to percentage wise?

Well there is a huge difference between someone who is capable of getting up and walking out of the building in 2.5 minutes and someone who is hurt or needs assistance.

[nearlythere]

Awfully big margin. What would that equate to percentage wise?

Well there is a huge difference between someone who is capable of getting up and walking out of the building in 2.5 minutes and someone who is hurt or needs assistance.

Why might they be hurt Civvy?
Thats the first evacuation strategy I have come across which has rescue or assistance factored in to the time. 

[FSO]

Im glad that we can rest assured that all fires will behave like a 476 test.

[kurnal]

I have never argued that if you are installing new doors they should be of the correct standard. I am in full agreement that if new doors are going in they should include intumescent strips as that is reasonable.

Im talking here of existing doors and in particular the financial implications and reasonableness of insisting that the doors must be upgraded simply because they dont have intumescent strips.

And I still havent had any answer that convinces me that intumescent strips are in most situations for life safety protection, because if people are still in the building by the time they have activated (except for places with stay put policies, excessive evacuation times that is) something has gone horribly wrong.

So if you would like to  lead me to the bar and get the beers in I will happily accept your humble apology.

Sorry Retty I had misunderstood you on two counts.

First I thought that you were discussins seals in all situations not just the scenario of "upgrading" a part 8 door with seals in the hope of achieving a part 22 equivalent.

Secondly just for a minute I thought you said I was to buy the drinks. That cannot be right.

[Midland Retty]

I have never argued that if you are installing new doors they should be of the correct standard. I am in full agreement that if new doors are going in they should include intumescent strips as that is reasonable.

Im talking here of existing doors and in particular the financial implications and reasonableness of insisting that the doors must be upgraded simply because they dont have intumescent strips.

And I still havent had any answer that convinces me that intumescent strips are in most situations for life safety protection, because if people are still in the building by the time they have activated (except for places with stay put policies, excessive evacuation times that is) something has gone horribly wrong.

So if you would like to  lead me to the bar and get the beers in I will happily accept your humble apology.

Sorry Retty I had misunderstood you on two counts.

First I thought that you were discussins seals in all situations not just the scenario of "upgrading" a part 8 door with seals in the hope of achieving a part 22 equivalent.

Secondly just for a minute I thought you said I was to buy the drinks. That cannot be right.

Apology accepted Prof,  and I never "discussins" anything.

I would echo the comments from Nearlythere and FSO and Civvy are you laying bait again?

[Davo]

Prof

er, new stuff,   


For some strange reason I find myself drifting towards Retty on this one........

davo

[CivvyFSO]

Thats the first evacuation strategy I have come across which has rescue or assistance factored in to the time. 

So what standard should we accept for doors? Should we create a new test for a FD2.5 door that will last 2.5 minutes of the heating regime? In fact why do we even need doors if we can guarantee that everyone is out in 2.5 minutes? I could probably prove with a bit of maths that conditions would be tenable 2.5 minutes after an alarm went off in almost any premises. Shall we engineer it perfectly so that the whole building falls down the moment the last person is expected to reach safety? After all, why do we want 30 or 60 minutes of structural fire resistance when everyone will be out?

Have a look at PD7974-6, the pre-movement time for any poorly managed premises is given as over 15 minutes. Where does this fit in with the magic 2.5 minutes? Are the people who had input to this BS wrong?

Now have a look at the details behind the recent New Look prosecution, see if people were out of the premises in 2.5 minutes after the alarm going off. 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

[Tom Sutton]

Have a look at PD7974-6, the pre-movement time for any poorly managed premises is given as over 15 minutes. Where does this fit in with the magic 2.5 minutes? Are the people who had input to this BS wrong?

Civvy The 2.5 minutes is one part of the evacuation time and between 10 to 20 minutes is more realistic time for full evacuation for medium sized buildings.  For me this was born out when witnessing evacuation drills in SME's.