Surface mounted fire door seals

[K Lard]

I have been researching the use of retrofitting fire seals to fire doors. I have found a site that states that a gap of 11 mm at the top of a fire door can be rectified using surface mounted fire seals. The IFA document on Guidance on the Upgrading of Joinery Doors states that a gap of 8 mm or even wider can be sealed. 11 mm seems excessive to me - does any one have a comment on this. The accompanying video on the website does not inspire confidence as it shows them being fitted to what is clearly not a fire door.

[Fishy]

If it's the website I'm thinking of, if you read it very carefully it doesn't actually say it can be used to upgrade doors with gaps of 11mm at the head of the leaf.. It only says they've successfully tested it "...on an old door with a head gap between 7mm and 11mm, the seal just expanded and remained in place for the whole test. Tested to BS476 Part 22 (1987), achieving an integrity of up to 66 minutes with an 11mm gap at the head of the door...".  It's feasible that it did work (if you chose a smallish door leaf of suitably 'sympathetic' construction to test it on it's not beyond the bounds of possibility), but even if we assume it worked once on a particular door construction that is a long, long way from saying it would be capable of being used to upgrade a wide range of doors with this size of gap at the head.

In any case I've never had anyone convince me that you can reliably upgrade a timber door to give you 60 minutes F/R.  Even the purpose-made fire resisting doorsets have a hard time achieving that rating - especially to the BS EN.

[kurnal]

Here's a link to the document to which the original poster refers

http://www.means-of-escape.com/sites/default/files/Information%20Sheet%206.pdf

Personally I think it a very well thought out document that sets out many of the issues when faced with the challenges of competing priorities of fire safety versus heritage. It must be viewed within the intended context and as a whole. References to BS tests may not be helpful as they focus only on the BS test itself and not the circumstances and priorities of the case under review. It is not intended to be guidance on how to repair existing BS476 fire doors and should not be used for this purpose. The ASDMA guide gives excellent advice in this regard.

Personally I think the document could be further improved by devising a hierarchy of measures eg in respect of gaps priority should be given to closing down any gaps by rehanging rather than in filling with seals.

[Fishy]

Here's a link to the document to which the original poster refers

http://www.means-of-escape.com/sites/default/files/Information%20Sheet%206.pdf

Some useful info in there (apart from being a blatant sales pitch for IFC services) - but again it doesn't say if you have doors with 8mm gaps at the head then you can upgrade them using intumescent seals - it just says IFC have helped intumescent manufacturers successfully test a particular doorset with that gap at the head & it worked.

See also http://www.fire-door-services.com/Downloads/Trada_FireDoorsetsbyUpgrading_000.pdf for the 'TRADA' equivalent guidance... more often referred to by the Authorities in my experience, along with the English Heritage documents "Timber panelled doors and fire" and "The use of intumescent products in historic buildings".  The "Timber panelled doors and fire" document in particular is incredibly useful as it has loads of constructional details & it allows you to assess the fire resistance of the existing panels to ascertain whether upgrading is necessary or not.  Pretty much does what you suggest?  Can't find anywhere on the 'Net' where you can download it for free, though!

have to mention BS 8214 as well, of course...

[wee brian]

There was a rumour that TRADA pulled their incredibly useful upgrading info when they realised that they would be better off getting you to buy a new door. I can't beleive it myself.

[kurnal]

Exactly Fishy and the crux is this - if you have large gaps then the first priority must always be to rehang the door to eliminate them because this is always where the fire will breach first. Seals will always be the very last resort if for some reason the gap cannot be eliminated and then choose and fit with great care along with an expectation that they may not work as described in the very sparse literature provided by the manufacturer

[wee brian]

I think it rather depends on what the door is doing. the standard EI 30sa spec is a one size fits all performance. In practice some doors are really there for smoke control, others for compartmentation. Some will have a big, well ventilated fire load to deal with others a cupboard full of spoons.

[Fishy]

I think it rather depends on what the door is doing. the standard EI 30sa spec is a one size fits all performance. In practice some doors are really there for smoke control, others for compartmentation. Some will have a big, well ventilated fire load to deal with others a cupboard full of spoons.

Wooden spoons?

Sorry, couldn't resist it.... 

[wee brian]

its a fair cop. 

[K Lard]

Thanks for the info will consider it in my deliberations!

[AnthonyB]

Going off on a tangent what's everyone's  take on this:

Sleeping risk premises has a load of doorsets set up to be FD30S with frame mounted seals & smoke brushes, the frames being pre-routed for seals but just omitted on install.

Someone has previously noted this and asked for seals, etc however the chippy who has done the work has, instead of fixing the seals in the frames that are already prepped for them, taken off all the door leaves, routed them and put the seals there instead leaving the seal and smoke brush opposite the routed channel in the frame.

Other than obviously having cost the client in unnecessary labour time does this risk the doorset not performing as it should do to a significant enough degree to warrant action?

[kurnal]

Obviously the empty grooves could have an effect on both the smoke control and intumescent seal performance especially if they are immediately opposite each other. When I come across this I would normally recommend the empty grooves be fitted with intumescent seals.

[AnthonyB]

That was my thinking, just didn't want to seem to be over-reacting as the door seals are the tip of the iceberg with this particular premises, I certainly wouldn't sleep in it!

[Auntie LIn]

Kurnal - I'd be a bit wary about putting two sets of seals immediately opposite each other.   There is a potential for difficulty if you are using pressure-generating seals that they may activate against each other and start to push the door out of the frame, but I do agree that the void needs to be filled.   A nice, soft, gapfiller intumescent material would be good.

[kurnal]

Thanks Lin, though the gapfiller may be messy to apply and the doors will need to be wedged whlst it skins over to avoid contaminating the smoke seal. We also need to consider the smooth even surface required for correct operation of the smoke seal.