Dorgard

[jayjay]

The dorgard has been approved by most fire authorities.
In the care home situation you should be aware that the unit self tests every 7 days and releases the door. An audible warning is given but in the case of the elederly the risk of a door closing and hitting a service user should be assessed. This has happened and resulted in a death (not with a Dorgard unit)

[Bob Docherty]

Hi Guys lets try and out the record staight with Dorgard as I am reading the various replies and some are off the mark a bit with regard to the product.  I think I can boil the guidance down to two particular notes, one is a Guidance document brought out some time ago by CFOA which I believe all Brigades sign up to.  Their is also an NHS Estates note that was issued around 12 months ago which is very similar to the CFOA Guidance.  In Scotland the new Building Regs. and Standards permit the use of devices such as Dorgard but as usual with Scotland you need to have a Building Warrant (this is not just for Dorgard but for any change of anything in a building with a few deemed to satisfy exceptions) but although SHTM 84 recommends the use of swing free devices this is only GUIDANCE and the Building Regulations in Scotland are the law and as it stands at the moment if a Warrant was applied for to fit Dorgards then Building Control or any Scottish Fire Brigade would have to have a very good objection for the Warrant not to be approved.
Now on the subject of Standards, and as we know there are soome of us who sit on BSI committees, Dorgard has been tested via a third party testing house to BS EN 1155 and received a full test certificate after the test so that might be understood by those of us on such committees that make the Standards.Now to the nitty gritty!
As a former Fire Officer then my view was that the best place for a fire door is closed up against its jamb (and I still hold that view).  As a psychologist, I accept that the behaviour of people is succh that a lot have a tendency to keep open fire doors for a number of reasons and this they do either with an illegal wedge whilst the few do fit an 'approved' device(s).  As a fire engineer, I accept that there has to be more than one solution to a problem and in these times such solutions are based on risk assessment, expedience, efficiency and economic factors and in the circumstances that we are discussing here, then Dorgard has to be a considered as an option or alternative.  
If there is no faith in new and innovative products then where do we advance from and do we continue to nourish the cynics or those with vested interests rather than what is a viable option to the solution of any specific case (hey! risk assessment is all about this and there are a few of us that have written hard and long on this subject - maybe they should start to believe what they are actually writing and preaching for once!)?  If you need any example of this then none better than the domestic smoke alarm.  I am old enough unfortunately to remember the debate that raged at the time with such arguments as they will never work because they are battery operated, will they be loud enough? they will never be serviced, create too many false alarms so the fire services will always be responding to then day and night continuously!!!! etc etc. all the excuses why we shouldn't fit them and no positives but now I see that they are now the norm and yes, we are writing more British Standards to hopefully improve on them (and I can recall the names of those who didn't want them introduced, both manufacturers and fire service people but how supportive they became when they were proved wrong but the various Governments of the day and politicians started to get excited about them!!!).
Finally, if you want to bring about world peace, if you want an end to world povery, if you want solutions to political problems in world then if you are looking for Dorgard to produce an answer to those problems then I am afraid you will wait a long time, BUT if you want a ready solution to people illegally wedging fire doors open then maybe, just maybe Dorgard is the solution you might just comnsider.

[Brian Catton]

Is there any real evidence that these devices have failed to operate in a fire,or alarm situation? mind you I would prefer to see coventionaql release devices on Comp. and Sub Comp. doors in hospitals. What you have really got to ask is this. Is the door required to be open for the correct reasons, ie impedes normal traffic flow or is required for clinical/observation reasons. If the answer is yes then the two options should be considered, conventional against dorguard. Which of the two depends as I see it on how critical the door is to means of escape/PHE
Another factor is maintenance. If dorguard is chosen it has to be part of a ppm programme. and batteries replaced in all the devices in a premises annually. yes I know it fails when the battery expires, but all staff do not know this and then we are back to a wedge or a spoon.

[colin todd]

Robert, Knowing what an old worry wart I am, and recognising that you are employed by Dorguard as I recall, although I acknowldege willingly that you are undoubtedly unbiased in your helpful advice, I wonder if you would be the person to just reassure me on a few things?
Numero Uno Was the then CACFOA document not written on the assumption that the product complied fully and was within the scope of BS 5839-3?
Numero duo Is the original CACFOA guidance regarded by CFOA as current, as it is not on their website as far as I can see.
3. Are you entirely happy that a device used in a lot of res care, self tests every 7 days, with the risk of hitting wrinklies in the teeth, a point made above by one of our learned brethern.
4 Is it not the case  that the door will close at ambient noise levels above a certain value---is this a problem at the wrinklies' Friday night ceildh?
5. What if the SPL of the fire alarm system drops below 65dB(A)?
6. Is the SPl at the door not likely to drop below 65dB(A) if the nearest sounder fails, and does this not then make the means of escape very vunerable to single device failure?
7. Is the full BS EN 1155 test report available for all and sundry to peruse, as when a door manufacturer has their door tested to BS 476-22.

Just a few simple thoughts from simple countryfolk.

[Allen Higginson]

Surely the risk of hitting elderly or infirm people is as relevant when the fire alarm activates as it is when the Dorgard self tests? Can you be sure that no resident will be in the vicinity of an automatic door closing in the event of a fire alarm activation?
With regards to the dB levels this should be well assessed before Dorgards are even installed and should not be an issue if the fire alarm has been properly installed and commissioned.
Any single device failure can compromise a part of a building or the correct operation of the fire alarm.A detector not responding in a corridor would render this escape route inaccessable and be a risk to life.The system is only good as the sum of all it's parts
With regards to the high volume levels during their sociakl gatherings - it's not The Who at these things!! The Bontempi steam organ is not known for it's high volume output!

[greg]

in response to Brians question about evidence of failure of Dorgard. i have personally seen them fail on two occassion in the same premises. this was even after being at the premises specifically to witness their correct operation.

[Brian Catton]

Thanks for that greg. Can you tell me what was the cause of failure? was it the fact that the device itself failed to recognise the alarm sound (ie device failyre) or was it due to the fact that the alarm sounder was not close enough to give the correct sound level?

[greg]

Brian,

It was a case of both actually, initially having been fitted they had not been adjusted correctly and did not respond to the frequency of the sound. Some of the devices once again did not actuate on the alarm and the premises had to fit additional sounders to ensure actuation. Which was an unforeseen expense for the management. What worried me most was that these had just been fitted and I would have assumed that tests would have been carried out to ensure correct function prior to the arrival of an inspecting officer. This leads me to conclude that either no pre-testing had been done which  questions the competancy of the fitters or that the tests had been carried out and in a matter of days or a couple of weeks the devices had started to operate incorrectly. Obviously there are other issues over long term management of the devices and procedures and policies for deactivation in the event of alarm failure which have already been covered.

[Brian Catton]

Surely Greg If the management had been given the correct advice in the first place. That the dorgards must be tested in situe and if they fail to operate correctly more sounders, or conventional releases may be required the expense could have been forseen

[greg]

I agree, however I can only assume that the management were not given this advice by the salesman

[AnthonyB]

As I understand it, there is a radio version of the Dorgard that overcomes sounder problems by having a remote sensor next to a sounder, this sensor then signalling all the Dorgard units in the vicinity to release.

I find it difficult to make my mind up about the Dorgard. Certainly the gold standard (other than keeping the doors shut of course!) is the magnetic release that forms part of the fire alarm system & certainly in high risk premises, such as the healthcare ones cited above, should be the option selected.

However, in the typical office premises like our company deals with, you are stuck with the problem of key doors being wedged (doors onto protected stairs so that there is an open inviting image to the reception, kitchens so that drinks trays can be passed through).
The occupier won't shut them, but won't pay the high cost of mag release installation & resort to the enforcing authorities is a waste of time. Dorgard potentially is a middle ground that provides better protection than doing nothing.

The key is though not to specify the device willy nilly - each potential application should be risk asseessed for suitability and also the liklihood of sucessful functioning (audibility tests, simulation, etc).

It would be nice to think you could just buy it and slap it on the door & all will be well, but as we all know life isn't that simple!

[colin todd]

Mr Buzzard:
1. Fire alarm tests can be better controlled than self test.
2. A fire alarm system that has, say, 60dB(A) at the fire doors is absolutely fine, but would not meet the 65dB(A) level (obviously).
3. It is worrying if a single component failure can negate means of escape for, say, all upper floor occupants of a building-you would not accept single door separation on a single staircase condition.
4. With regard to single detector failure, I cannot understand how failure of a  a single detector in a corridor can allow an escape route to be blocked unless the fire is in the corridor.
5. As I recall, but Bob may be able to confirm, it is only about 80dB(A) ambient that causes the device to operate. That is not The Who, or anything like it.
6. Also, what about medical alarms in hospitals activating the device.

[Bob Docherty]

Hi Guys sorry I am late at answering Colin's queries but have been on my Hols.  Anyway, I didn't mean for my last message to be the start of some corruscating debate, just as an information techno thing but as COLIN has posed a number of questions to me then I feel suddenly impelled to answer as 'unbiased' as I possibly can!!
Firstly Colin, your recognition that I am employed by Dorgard(sic) is not quite correct as you 'recollect'.  My relationship with FIRECO Ltd. who manufacture Dorgard is one of client/consultant, similar I suppose to a number of your relationships with clients par example (to use a French vernacualr as you do with the Spanish) the list in the PAS 79 Foreward.  However, I do not want to split hairs so if you want to suggest that I am employed by Dorgard then it is OK with me as a like comparitor would be yourself and your employment with BSI.  Now to answer the specifics as best I can:-
Numero Uno :- No it wasn't it was written on the basis of acceptance of generic products that might be used to hold open fire doors.  BSEN 1155 is the appropriate standard I believe as confirmed by the BSI in March 2001 and 1155 is also the only valid standard for release devices as confirmed by the CPD, and as an aside, Dorgard was the only device at the time of testing reported by the BSI engineers to be the only product ever tested by them to 5839 Pt 3 in its entirety!  As all will appreciate by now 5839-3 must now be defunct.
Numero Duo :-  I cannot speak for CFOA (so why do you ask me?) but their policy is a matter for them and I am sure if you were to contact them they would be more than happy to oblige, try talking to them.
3.  If the batteries are installed at noon then the Dorgards will self test at midnight as clearly stated in the FIRECO literature on the product - I will ask them to send you some product literature.
4. No, the only problem encountered and reported to FIRECO has been that Dorgards with digital signal processing discriminates so well between erroneous sounds and the fire alarm that elderly residents now have to get up an close the doors themselves to attenuate noise levels in their disco sessions that may annoy others!
5. Why should it? Is this a national problem as you seem keen to remark upon it? and if so why was your recommnedation of reducing the sound levels to 60Db in 5839-1 or even lower! Dorgards have in many situations exemplified the need for alarm SPI to be increased in order to satisfy 5839-1!!  On a practical note if you read the bumph that FIRECO will send you you will see that they can be adjusted to differing sound levels.
6. Yes but then if an atomic bomb were to drop etc etc etc etc etc etc. and by the way, if the sounder were to fail why did it in the first place? and if it did would that not mean that even without Dorgards or anything else then the whole fire safety strategy of the building would be compromised?  If there is such a concern over the failure rate of sounders (which is what you are suggesting) then maybe we should start the debate on that rather deflect it onto other devices, the corollary to your question is that if a sounder failed, then would not an open fire door allow better sound travel and alert those in the arera of the failed sounder? In my other life of putting out fires I did actually know this to happen in an hotel in Glasgow via a wedgd open fire door!  
7.  It is not in my personal gift to distribute test certificates and I cannot answer directly for any company that has paid money for the tests to be done.  However I have a copy of the certificates and they show that Dorgard is fully tested to 1155 and I am informed by FIRECO that it is fully available from them and has been provided willingly for those that have bothered to ask.  Have you asked? Also it was tested on a door being tested itself to 476-22 and the complete set went for 10% over the 60 minute time (1 Hour FR Door test).
I am sure that some of the readers of this debate have also read my paper in the FIRE magazine last year where it seems that so much confidence is placed on EMRs but my findings to date are that there may be serious issues with some installations especially, retro fitted, where it is obvious that they have been just wired in to the bell circuit alone and yet apart from a few Fire Brigades who recorded an interest the world of fire safety has been strangely silent on this one so maybe P Smith can check that one out vis a vis the best ones are '5839 linked systems'.
I hope that as C Newby states I have given as good  reasons as I can with the back up info that I have for those of you out there to make a judgement on the use of this product or indeed any other product that you or I come across out in the field.  Remeber what I said before, if you are looking foir a solution to make poverty history or bring about world peace then Dorgard won't do it, but it might just stop someone from wedging a fire door open illegally.
Cheers
BOB

[colin todd]

Robert, Trust you had a lovely holiday. Alas, the French wine has caused your numbering to be out of synch with mine, but I shall, as always, in the spirit on mutual cooperation, endeavour to respond as helpfully as possible. (In passing, one tends to talk about ''employing'' consultants, which is why I used the term.)
1. BS 5839-3 is NOT actually defunct yet.
2. I asked you about CFOA because you raised their policy in the first place. However, as one always ready to seek advice, I am adopting your suggestion and asking them. I will report back to you via this thread on the BB.
3. Old people do not necessarily go to bed before midnight. Maybe they should, but the appropriate sanction for not doing so is not a door in the teeth.
4. According to Chubb literature on the product the operation of the device in response to any noise above the stated level is actually a safety feature. Is that incorrect?
5. yes it is a national problem and this is why I remarked upon it.
6. Yes sounders do sometimes fail. More sounders have failed than atomic bombs have dropped, although George Dubya seems hell bent on redressing the balance. Sounder failure is not a strange and bizarre hypothetical. And, no the whole fire safety strategy is not ruined by single sounder failure. If the atomic bomb reference was to medical alarms causing the doors to close, I was given an anecdote of such an event only last week, and allegedly someone suffered a fractured ankle.
7. You missed the point about my BS 476-22 analogy, which I am certain is my fault entirely for my lack of clarity. To clarify, if a manufacturer claims compliance with BS 476-22 for N minutes, normally he will willingly hand out a copy of the test report, not just the certificate. Under contracts with test labs, the report can only be reproduced in full, not in part. I was not suggesting that a door needed retested if  fitted with your client's product, merely that, by analogy, I wondered if, since BS EN 1155 compliance is claimed, the test report can be given out? Maybe it could be sent to me along with the ''bunf'' if that would be possible?
As always many thanks for your helpful advice.

[colin todd]

Have just checked. The guidance document is publicly available on the OLD CFOA website, but has not yet migrated across to the new. It is, however, under consideration for revision. The exisitng document points out that use of the self contained device is dependent on a risk assessment.