Hotel bedroom doors
This determination should not now be considered a standard. The determination is only for the specific hotel and does not constitute a precedent for hotels or any other type of premise. A previous determination in a hotel did state that intumescent and cold smoke seals were necessary it depends on the circumstances.
Of the 215 bedrooms 48 of them would appear to be fitted with seals as they were not in question and smoke seals were also fitted to the staircase doors.
What is not mentioned is the standard of the doors to other rooms such as bars, storage areas such as linen rooms which can be within hotel corridors.
What causes me concern in this determination is that it appears to be a global decision on the 167 bedrooms on whether to upgrade or not. The reason for not upgrading being that 25mm rebates are fitted and are suitable based on various other submitted evidence, the cost involved and the provision of smoke detection.
I would prefer to have seen a more detailed assessment of the condition of the individual doors. This hotel was built in 1980 therefore these doors could be 30 years old. Are the doors still in perfect condition, is there any warping of the doors; do the latches hold the door fully against the rebates on all edges?
Are the rebates integral to the frame or planted and if so how fixed.
An old Fire Research Note (No.652 Movement of Smoke on Escape Routes Part 2. Effect Of Door Gaps On Movement Of Smoke), details a series of tests carried out with varying size of door to frame gaps, including an adhoc fire test on smoke leakage and the best results for this was with a perfect fit at the jambs and head of the doors, is this still the case in this hotel?
BS 476-31.1: 1983 is the current standard for smoke control relating fire resisting doors in the UK and this relates only to cold (ambient temperature) smoke.
The introduction to this standard states “Leakage of smoke can occur through the clearances between the door leaf and the frame and other openings. This (test) method simulates the conditions which door sets and shutter assemblies may be subjected to in practice during either the very early stages of fire development or at positions remote from the seat of the fire”. So what is necessary for a fire resisting door close to the seat of a rapidly developing fire?
There is no current requirement in the UK for control of warm or hot smoke. The permitted air/smoke leakage through a typical single leaf FD30S door is 3m3/hour whilst without smoke seals one estimate is that the same door would leak 200m3/hour.
Door leaves are rarely perfectly flat and allowable tolerances exist for door flatness as given in BS EN 1530: 2000 in respect of cup, bow and twist. In addition, door leaves will take up and lose moisture depending upon in-use conditions and it is not practicable to suppose that they will remain perfectly stable in use.
The quantity of smoke that is likely to pass through the gaps will be influenced by pressure differential, rate of smoke generation, and the gap dimensions, all issues that should be considered for each door.
Quantifying the costs which was an important part of the determination is not possible from the determination but if it was based on the removal of each door routing out a groove, installing dual strips and re hanging the door. Then agreed it would probably be considerable for a 167 doors. However if surface mounted smoke seals were used they could be very quickly fitted without door removal and would be very cost effective.
Brush, blade or fin type seals are more tolerant to imperfections and can take up variations in the door to frame gap or warping of doors.
I am concerned that a determination based on possibly imprecise data, guides and standards, one of which has been superseded can be stated as a common sense.
Common sense tells me that based on my experience of smoke spread and some of the above issues raised, that 25mm rebates only, on 30 year old doors are unlikely to provide adequate smoke stopping on every one of the 167 doors.
