Mike North

BS 9999:2017 14.2 Acceptable means of escape i. wicket doors and gates (except from high risk areas), provided that: 1. they are not intended to be used by members of the public; 2. not more than 10 persons are expected to use them in an emergency; 3. they provide an opening at least 500 mm wide, with the top of the opening not less than 1.5 m above the floor level and the bottom of the opening not more than 250 mm above the floor level; 14.3 Generally unacceptable means of escape e. security grilles and shutters (roller, folding or sliding), loading doors, goods doors, sliding doors and up-and-over doors, unless they are capable of being easily and quickly opened. If power-operated they should: 1. be provided with a fail-safe system for opening if either the mains supply and/or any alternative power supply fails; 2. be capable of being easily and quickly opened manually;

We are currently refurbing a single story building which has 3 corridors approximately 35m in length running in parallel between the final exits. We are installing FD30S doors as approximately the midpoint of each corridor. The issue is that at the midpoint is another corridor that connects the three corridors but is not connected to a final exit (basically |-|-|) we can either put a door at the midpoint of each (2 doors) or at the end (3 doors). Does anyone have any suggestions or an alternative, currently the walls are not full height and so require fire stopping.

Reading the building regulations, it is quite clear that these fully cover new buildings. They also cover material alteration and material change of use. New builds and existing buildings will have to meet the requirements of the regulations that where in force at the time of construction/design. There is no part of the regulation that requires the building to be brought up to the latest regulation. For refurbished/altered buildings, we have to rely on SI 2214:2010 (building Regs) paragraphs 3, 4 and 6, for paragraph 3 the requirements for works comes under paragraph 4, the last paragraph of which in this section states that, where it did not comply before the works there is no requirement for it to comply as long as it is no worse than before the works started. In summary, if an item is to the current regulations, it must be maintained to it, there is no requirement to bring any item that does not meet the current regulations to the current regulations. If an item is replacement this then becomes a material alteration and will require installing to the current regulations, there will be no expectation within the regulations to bring the remainder of the building up to the latest regulation.

That would create one hell of a vacuum making the door all but impossible to open

Obviously remove the existing bat, install a suitable framework, then install the hatch, then make good with bat correctly around the hatch. All the above using 3rd party accredited materials and contractors.

I would rip outs the piece of bat that has the hole in it and renew it with a fire rated hatch in case you need access again

Although it does not look nice, the ceiling tiles are not there for fire protection merely for decoration the fire stopping is above the sprinkler head, the black intumescent that can be seen in the second image appears to be adequate. Unfortunately, the occupation has happened before practical completion, shouldn’t happen but it does, as long as a clear thoroughfare is kept it is not an issue. As long as someone in close proximity is in control of the of the door again, I do not see it as an issue.

Depending on the size you may be able to treat as an inner room, ADB 2.11

For a FD30 door the intumescent strip may be broken by the hardware, (hinges and lock). For a FD60 and above at least one of the seals must be continuous. The strips cannot be mixed and matched, we use a single manufacture and specify the seal so that we can replace a single edge of a door, like for like. If you change the fin type seals for brush, then be aware of part E and the acoustics. As a rule of thumb, the gap should be 3mm ±1mm at the head and jambs for any door, refer to the doors test certificate for the actual gap dimensions The life expectancy of an intumescent seal is a minimum of 20 up to 100 years dependant on the environment.

I would want and expect any door that I paid for the installation of to comply with the regulations that were in force at the time of installation, but why should I go over and above what the regulations are telling me to do. If there is no pressurisation present, then the only statutory requirement is for the head and jambs to resist passage of cold smoke, I would be happy with up to a 10 mm gap at the threshold provided that the door certification allows for it. That is mine and also Exova Warringtomfire understanding of the current regs.

So long as there is no pressurisation present, the only statutory requirement is for head and jambs to resist the passage of cold smoke

Free-Swing Door Closers (safelincs.co.uk)

the door should resist passages smoke to a given performance standard when pressurised from one side at “ambient” temperature to limit the amount of cold smoke passing from one side to the other. The requirements specifically exclude any performs for the threshold, the key point is that ADB only requires the head and jambs to have a performance form standard in respect to cold smoke leakage. When pressurisation is being used in a building as part of the active fire safety provisions then the requirement for smokes seals on the threshold of doors is increase and it is these conditions word threshold sealing would need to be considered So long as there is no pressurisation present, the only statutory requirement is for head and jambs to resist the passage of cold smoke

If you have to walk past another door or someone has to walk pass your door to get to a place of safety, then yes it has to be compliant.

Dig out the reg 38 information, the specification and manufacturer should ne noted.

I think that I am happy enough now to add an amendment to all 5 fire strategy reports and present these to the appropriate BC and FA for review and approval.

No FRA, it is a design change which will need to be approved by BC and FA

I have 6 Identical large dinners; the latest building has FD30S double swing doors between the diner and kitchen the rest have FD60S. All were built to 2007 regs. The doors are now at the end of life, can I replace them with · The regulatory requirement is for a FD30 door to be installed. · An FD60 rated door (as installed in 5 of the diners) configure as an FD30 to provide a more robust solution. · All double doors are to installed with A back-check mechanism to stop the over extension of the hinge on opening. Automatic hold-open connected to the fire alarm system with a timed release so that the doors return to the closed position when the diner is unoccupied. · Door protection on both faces of the door to a height of 25mm above the height of the kitchen trollies. · The glazing with any associated beading shall not be installed within 25mm of the door protection. · Leading edge protection shall be installed.

It all depends where the door is located, if there is nothing within 1.8 metres and no door above it is doubtful that there is a requirement for the door be fire rated.

There is no requirement for third party accreditation for the door or installation (you can get Joe Bloggs to fit it), however, it may be prudent to do, so that you can prove that it was compliant at the time it installation.

You would need to interrogate the certificate for the construction of the door which will tell you what modification can be made to the door.

So long as there is no pressurisation present, the only statutory requirement is for head and jambs to resist the passage of cold smoke

the door should resist passages smoke to a given performance standard when pressurised from one side at “ambient” temperature to limit the amount of cold smoke passing from one side to the other. The requirements specifically exclude any performs for the threshold, the key point is that ADB only requires the head and jambs to have a performance form standard in respect to cold smoke leakage. When pressurisation is being used in a building as part of the active fire safety provisions then the requirement for smokes seals on the threshold of doors is increase and it is these conditions word threshold sealing would need to be considered So long as there is no pressurisation present, the only statutory requirement is for head and jambs to resist the passage of cold smoke

There is no requirement to fit intumescent packers on a FD30 door, however any packers fitted should be

Can you put an intumescent block in the hole