Notional fire doors

[nearlythere]

Hi Golden

I am trying to get together two descriptors that could be included in a report on fire doors as a functional piece of fire safety.

I see three distinct categories of door/sets

1 the door with evidence
2 the door that looks feels and smells like a fire door but without evidence
3 the door that just isn’t a fire door.

Based on the two definitions used by Tom I would assume that the door with evidence is a factual description and can therefore be named FD30S or whatever it may be. Piglet makes a good point but in a legal case this would stand up I am sure.

The door without evidence is a fire door but not based on fact ie Notional and therefore if it was in a hole in the compartment where an FD30S should be, it could be described as such; a Notional (not based on fact) FD30S or whatever it may look like.

And the 3rd type is in name only a ‘fire door’ as it will prevent some flame some smoke from getting past for an undetermined amount of time ie nominal (in name only) FD with nominal fire resistance.(in name only) I guess this could be described as ‘not a fire door’.

The last may be a danger to life safety, the second may not last the designated time and therefore may impact on escape strategy/life safety and the first one should perform at the level it says it does.

Just to be pedantic can you say that a fire door is a factual description unless it has been tested as one? Is a door being produced as a fire door not a notional door as its construction is only based on one that proved itself through testing?
Just to be pedantic and it's Friday.

[kurnal]

on a fire door inspection when faced with a fire door with no traceable evidence would the following descriptor be a good caveat?

How would you know if it was a fire door if there were no traceable evidence?

Is it just a case of "if it looks like/ feels like/ there should have been a fire door here so this must be one/ etc?

[Davo]

Eli

Agree with your three categories

As others have said the actual frame and fitting should be your main concern


davo

[Tom Sutton]

Just to be pedantic can you say that a fire door is a factual description unless it has been tested as one? Is a door being produced as a fire door not a notional door as its construction is only based on one that proved itself through testing?
Just to be pedantic and it's Friday.

I agree NT but with a certified door set if the proverbial hits the fan you got somebody else to blame if not you are on your lonesome. Having said that with the safety factors being so generous IMO the chances are pretty slim.

[Golden]

Hi Eli, yes I suppose that as three broad categories those descriptors would do the trick - category 2 is going to be the broadest with a long description although it would be useful to start using the term 'doorsets' as the frame/rebates/hinges/etc. all come into play in the decision making process.

I also believe this is one of the areas that isn't really spoken about too much as it would open the proverbial 'can of worms' and I'm sure the door manufacturers are already lobbying hard for all doors to be certified.

[Eli]

Golden

I think that most new fire door sets do now come with some third party approval.

The biggest issue as Kurnal says is how you know what it is and what it is supposed to be.

My take is that if there are some historical plans or known building regulations (historic if needed) it should be possible to establish what should have been installed. The skill of the door assessor is to look for this evidence and then make a professional judgement based on what is in front of him as to if that is what it should be. As this is opinion and not based on fact it is a ‘notional’ fire door. If no such evidence can be found and it isn’t obvious that it is supposed to be a fire door then it could be down graded to a ‘nominal’ or ‘not a fire door’. 

I believe definitions of ‘notional’ and ‘nominal’ could be agreed easily and with an agreed approach a more consistent appraisal by assessors could be achieved. Plus the FRS couldn’t come in and demand a whole new set of fire doors; not that they do that, but it could happen.

[Tom W]

I don't really understand why you're trying to lable it. Each site will be different, after a judgement using experience and common sense you are better describing what you have done and what resistant you believe the door to have. If you have lable the door you're then shoehorning a lot of doors into that category. In effect giving the assessor an easy way out.

Like I said early even brand new doors with paperwork, approval won't meet the required resistance they are being sold as.

[Golden]

Eli I should have emphasised the 'all' in my comment as a new door wouldn't be acceptable without some sort of TPA, my belief is that some would like to see only doors with a certificate be given the 'fire door' label and ignore the experience and judgement of the assessor. I have tried to define what I understand by nominal and notional in previous posts, interchangeable to a point but there are slight differences.

Piglet I think you are right about the labelling and that Eli is looking for broad categories where I believe the use of the door is also part of the decision making process and should not be ignored.

[Eli]

I am trying to establish some simple guidance to describe fire doorsets; nothing to do with a full fire risk assessment.

Just doorset descriptions so a documented list can be made easily ie ;

A) FD30S
B) FD30S
C) Notional FD30
D) Nominal fire door 
E) Nominal fire door
F) Notional FD60

To be able to do this I need a definition of how each is established and what each means.
The risk posed by the different doorsets would not be assessed at this stage.

So assuming my 1, 2 and 3 is OK as a few have said broadly they are; then I am just trying to sort out the definitions of NOTIONAL and NOMINAL. If they are broadly acceptable then everyone will know what a ‘Notional FD30S’ is.

It is a doorset that has no third party evidence but in the opinion of the assessor is in a hole where an FD30S should be (according to original as built plans or building regulations) and is in appearance an FD30S. The performance may not meet the designated performance in the event of a fire.

[Golden]

Eli you're making up a list for your own purposes and cannot expect forum members to endorse your definitions. The latest list, in my opinion, confuses the terms of notional and nominal which have been discussed earlier. Its also quite clear that you cannot categorise non-certified doors - and to state that one has a notional 60 minute fire resistance is way off the mark of earlier discussions. I have no problem with discussing a list for personal use but the notion that 'everyone' will know what they are was never in my mind - the technical aspects of fire doors have been laid down in many standards and guidance notes - some of which have been referred to before in the thread and I suggest that 'everyone' reads these to understand the issues.

[Tom W]

Completely agree with Golden. You should also make people aware that you are canvassing for people to endorse a list you are compiling.

[Eli]

Completely agree with Golden. You should also make people aware that you are canvassing for people to endorse a list you are compiling.

Sorry Piglet and Golden I am just asking for opinions from forum members to see if I am barking up the wrong tree. Sound boarding, which is how I thought the forum worked.

If in ‘my’ definitions ‘I’ determined what a notional door was ‘to me’, the people who where presented with the definition would understand what ‘I’ meant in a brief listing of their fire door stock. I don’t think that’s too off the mark or too wacky a notion. So instead of saying everyone knowing what it means; I possibly could have said the client who has the definition in front of them will know what it is.

However having listened to Golden his version of nominal and notional are interchangeable and not the same way I would reference them. I used Tom’s definitions which make complete sense to me. So if there is confusion with what I am attempting to do it’s clearly not working. Which is what I wanted to establish; I think it could work very well but I may need to tweak it some more.

Golden by your own admission this isn’t easy and is a potential ‘can of worms’ which I do want to open. By the comments made I think that many people do it differently and use different terminology which is a clear indication of an underlying problem I think. 

[kurnal]

How would your definitions cope with a non fire rated door that had been upgraded either by one of the historic techniques such as were common in the days of BS459 or by one of the proprietory methods such as intumescent varnishes and paints? Would you then need a further category - upgraded door?

Personally I think you are opening a whole can of worms here and I cannot yet understand what is behind our proposal. I accept I may be being thick as usual Eli but I cannot see why, for whom and for what benefit. Is this for risk assessment or fire audit purposes?

My opinion is that there are too many box tickers and further checklists and labels will not help. What is needed is an educated assessment of each door and its frame, its condition, construction, history, data available, and door furniture within the context in which it is placed.

[Eli]

Kurnal audit only.

I agree with your last statement; all that should be done, but then what do you call it after you have done all that?

The examples of upgraded and propriatery treated would still fit 'my' categories as defined previuosly.
 

[Tom W]

You call them anything you want because you should be explaining the findings to the RP.