FD30 Spec. Final Exit Doors

Ronan H

Hi...

I have a retrospective query about final exit doors from a premises and whether or not they need to be of FD30 standard or not...

Here are the variables:

- The house has had a change of use from regular residential house (as in with a family living there) to being used a residential unit for teenagers in the care of the HSE, so essantially, business use.
- We have had all the fire safety work done, i.e. fire alarm system, fire doors internally etc.

We have been working off Building Regulations 2006, Technical Guidance Document B on Fire Safety.

The architect specified that the final exit doors, i.e. the front door and the back door, which lead out to the environment, also have to be to the spec. of FD30. This has caused us considerable difficulty in that we found it very difficult to get our hands on a fire rated external door. Most places "laughed" (as such) at the idea of a final exit door having the be to FD30 spec. I queried with the architect why it needed to be the case and he said that it was to ensure that if there was a fire outside the door, i.e. on the footpath, that the door would delay the fire getting into the house. I laughed internally at such a reason, but maybe there is logic in it, as we all know that concrete often just goes on fire, just for the crack). I mentioned the windows then, asking whether they all needed to replaced also, in case there was a fire outside of them also. He said the windows were OK.

So basically, going on his word, we went ahead and spent over €3000 on a new front and back door, which delayed us considerably because they had to be made from scratch etc. Now the house is complete and the architect has signed off on all the work, but I am still curious about whether it was indeed necessary to have the final exit doors to FD30 spec. I cannot find it in the Technical Guidance Document, even though the architect said that it is in there.

I am concerned that we wasted a lot of money and time on something that was not required.

If there is anyone here who could offer an opinion on this I would appreciate it as it is bugging me somewhat.

Thanks.

Edit: Some more information:

The dwelling falls under Purpose Group 2(a) Residential Institutional – Hospital, nursing home, home for old people or for children, school or other similar establishment used as living accommodation.

sydthebeat

i havent looked specifically into this...but from a broad perspective ive never ever had a situation where a final exit needed to be a FD 30 door.

In my mind its counter intuitive to have a fire exit door which is self closing.... an open door offers illumination and extra smoke ventilation.

Ronan H

The final exit doors aren't self closing, which I guess is another seemingly odd variable considering that every other FD30 door in the house is self closing...

The plot thickens.

sydthebeat

well straight away theres a problem... the definition of a fire door is that it must be self closing.

see page 151 - 152 TGD B

All fire doors should be fitted with an automatic
self-closing device which is capable of closing the door
from any angle and against any latch fitted to the door.

Where a self-closing device would be considered
a hindrance to the normal use of the building, fire doors
may be held open by:
(a) a fusible link (but not if the door is fitted in an
opening provided as a means of escape unless it
complies with paragraph B4 below); or
(b) an electro-magnetic or electro-mechanical device
which will automatically release the door on
activation of an adjacent smoke detector on the fire
alarm system, if the door can also be closed manually
and it is not to be -
(i) the only escape stairway serving a building (or
part of a building); or
(ii) a firefighting stairway; or
(iii) an escape stairway serving a building in any
residential purpose group;
or
(c) a door closure delay device.

BryanF

OP is there alot of glass in the FE doors? perhaps there was some rational there?

Ronan H

sydthebeat wrote: »

well straight away theres a problem... the definition of a fire door is that it must be self closing.

Exactly. Very inconsistent altogether.

BryanF wrote: »

OP is there alot of glass in the FE doors? perhaps there was some rational there?

There was only a couple of small panes in the front door and on the back door the top half was more or less all glass, like most you see these days.

The new doors have no glass.

sinnerboy

Ronan H wrote: »

If there is anyone here who could offer an opinion on this I would appreciate it as it is bugging me somewhat.

Why ? Worse case is you've got over specified doors. B Regs are min standards only. Are you looking to stiff the architect on his fees?

sinnerboy

Ronan H wrote: »

We have been working off Building Regulations 2006, Technical Guidance Document B on Fire Safety.

The architect specified that the final exit doors, i.e. the front door and the back door, which lead out to the environment, also have to be to the spec. of FD30. This has caused us considerable difficulty in that we found it very difficult to get our hands on a fire rated external door. Most places "laughed" (as such) at the idea of a final exit door having the be to FD30 spec.

Look at diagram 8 so. In this context doors do not have to be self closing.

Did any of the "laughers" offer to certify the works ?

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

Look at diagram 8 so. In this context doors do not have to be self closing.

Did any of the "laughers" offer to certify the works ?

In context of diagram 8, its interesting that the regs actually state that the storey exit doesnt have to be fire resisting.

I dont see anything to suggest the FDs in this example dont have to be self closing.

I agree that theres nothing wrong with going above and beyond the regulations, but perspective needs to be given to assessing risk. Its impossible to legislate for every eventuality, so therefore risk must be weighted up.

But i agree, if thats what the architect (as engaged by the client) proposed and was only willing to certify, then so be it.

sinnerboy

For all we know the fire officer insisted on it during the Fire Cert application. Perhaps the architect could not recall the reason why when queried by the OP.
But the Fire Cert documents would still have to complied with in any event.

Final exits are not the only exception to the no closer required rule - doors to services ducts don't require them either.

closers are required to fire doors in protected stairway to preserve the safety their to allow users time to escape. And to fire risk rooms to contain fire for long enough to allow users to escape.

Once passed the Final Exit , the user has escaped ergo no need for closer.

No6

Final exit doors are not generally required to be fire rated but where an external escape route passes by the door the fire dept may insist on them being fire rated as part of the fire cert.

sydthebeat

going by what the OP posted the architects reason for insisting on FD30s for final exits is

he said that it was to ensure that if there was a fire outside the door, i.e. on the footpath, that the door would delay the fire getting into the house

we can add hypothesises to this, but taking the 'reason' above at face value... it seems the architect was extremely excessive.

OP can you clarify if you are the client, contractor or whatever your interest is in this?

Ronan H

sinnerboy wrote: »

Why ? Worse case is you've got over specified doors. B Regs are min standards only. Are you looking to stiff the architect on his fees?

Why?
- Because it delayed the opening of the unit by six weeks. That six weeks cost us a lot of money in rent.
- It's also six weeks longer that a whole staff team continue to be out of work.
- And six weeks without being able to offer a placement to young people who badly need it.
- There's also the matter of the cost of the doors, and the installation.

If we incurred all these costs when they were in fact not strictly necessary, then that bugs me.

Yes, valid point, we may have over specified doors now, but I'd rather have had the unit opened six weeks ago, providing work for a dozen people, and a placement for young people in need, and the guts of five grand in the bank, than have over specified doors.

Chasing the money is up to the director of the service. It wasn't my money that paid for the work. For me it's the principle of the matter. If it wasn't definitely necessary then we shouldn't have been instructed to do it, given the costs (not just financially) involved.

It would also make me rethink using the same architect again in the future.

Them's the whys.

sinnerboy wrote: »

For all we know the fire officer insisted on it during the Fire Cert application. Perhaps the architect could not recall the reason why when queried by the OP.
But the Fire Cert documents would still have to complied with in any event.

To me, not being able to recall the reason that something as significant as external fire doors were required, is not good enough. The reasons given were questionable IMO, and I am unable to find any documentation that backs up the request.

There is nothing in any of the documentation I have (drawings, fire safety certificate, FSC conditions), to suggest that these doors need to be FD30'd.

sydthebeat wrote:

But i agree, if thats what the architect (as engaged by the client) proposed and was only willing to certify, then so be it.

So be it, if the proposed work was based on something specific, like a specification in the regs, but if it is based on something, lets say, loose, such as preventing a fire from entering a house from the outside, then so be it doesn't cut it.

Ronan H

sydthebeat wrote: »

going by what the OP posted the architects reason for insisting on FD30s for final exits is


we can add hypothesises to this, but taking the 'reason' above at face value... it seems the architect was extremely excessive.

OP can you clarify if you are the client, contractor or whatever your interest is in this?

Sorry, only seeing this now, you must have posted while I was writing my previous post.

I will be managing the unit. The architect was hired by the director of the service. I have been dealing with the architect for the past few months as things were going along.

On a personal level, my interest is that it has delayed my start date significantly. I am itching to get started and it's wrecking my head. Also, I can't stand wishy washy application of regulations and inefficient use of time, resources, money etc., particularly when it affects me personally, but also because of the wider reaching impact that it has had, as depicted in my previous post. I feel that it is wrong that someone else may have spent a huge amount of money and had the opening of a service delayed as a result of extemely excessive (to use your phrase ) interpretation of regulations.

On a general principle level, poor quality service really bugs me. If someone provides me with a poor quality service, then they are done. I will find someone else next time who will do the work properly. I have sent many a person packing from my (personal) house who did shoddy work. That kind of messing shouldn't be stood for by people.

sydthebeat

Point 1

The build should not have been held up at any stage if the fire safety certification requirements were included in the tender / construction drawings.
This is either a failure of the architect to include, or a failure of the client to engage the architect to prepare construction drawings.


Point 2

the architect should be able to point you to the SPECIFIC requirement in the building regulations which necessitated the inclusion of the fire doors. If there was no requirement he should have made that quite clear to the client at that point where he insisted upon them.

i would be EXTREMELY surprised if this six week hold up was down to something that wasnt of necessity.

Point 3

The horse has bolted hasnt it.

Ronan H

sydthebeat wrote: »

Point 1

The build should not have been held up at any stage if the fire safety certification requirements were included in the tender / construction drawings.
This is either a failure of the architect to include, or a failure of the client to engage the architect to prepare construction drawings.

Point 2

the architect should be able to point you to the SPECIFIC requirement in the building regulations which necessitated the inclusion of the fire doors. If there was no requirement he should have made that quite clear to the client at that point where he insisted upon them.

i would be EXTREMELY surprised if this six week hold up was down to something that wasnt of necessity.

Point 3

The horse has bolted hasnt it.

On point 1, it wasn't a new build. It was a change of use situation. There was no tendering process etc. involved.

The delay occurred because it took that long to get the door made and installed. We had all the other fire safety work done when it came to light that the external doors needed to be replaced.

This six week delay directly impacted on the overall timescale because at the time it was the only thing outstanding. We had to wait until it was done before we could get the architect to sign off on all the work.

On point 2, I totally agree that he should be able to point me towards specific regulations on the issue. He did allude to section 1.5 of the document he sent me, i.e. TGD B (presumably). This is the section that deals with escape routes in dwelling houses, but I can't find anything there. All it says is the usual stuff about facilitating fast egress and being lit properly etc. Not a dickiebird about fire protection.

Point 3, as in, the work is done etc. and these retrospective ponderings may be futile? You may have a point, but as I said, it's the principle of the thing, and if it turns out that poor advice has been offered then we will seek help elsewhere next time.

Maybe the horse wouldn't have bolted if we had installed a lovely FD30 on the barn?!

sinnerboy

Ronan H wrote: »

On point 1, it wasn't a new build. It was a change of use situation. There was no tendering process etc. involved.

Why not ?

Ronan H wrote: »

The delay occurred because it took that long to get the door made and installed. We had all the other fire safety work done when it came to light that the external doors needed to be replaced.

Who was acting as contractor and why did s/he not order the FD30's in time ?

Ronan H wrote: »

This six week delay directly impacted on the overall timescale because at the time it was the only thing outstanding. We had to wait until it was done before we could get the architect to sign off on all the work.

Well works should not be signed off if all items required are not in place. Think of your safety and all the staff and young people etc. etc.

Ronan H wrote: »

On point 2, I totally agree that he should be able to point me towards specific regulations on the issue. He did allude to section 1.5 of the document he sent me, i.e. TGD B (presumably). This is the section that deals with escape routes in dwelling houses, but I can't find anything there. All it says is the usual stuff about facilitating fast egress and being lit properly etc. Not a dickiebird about fire protection.

Out of curiosity , on what basis was the Architect appointed ? Do you know ?

It may have a bearing on what you said next -

Ronan H wrote: »

Point 3, as in, the work is done etc. and these retrospective ponderings may be futile? You may have a point, but as I said, it's the principle of the thing, and if it turns out that poor advice has been offered then we will seek help elsewhere next time.

Poor Uncle Tom

Ronan H wrote: »

Maybe the horse wouldn't have bolted if we had installed a lovely FD30 on the barn?!

I had to laugh at this....:D

It seems a strange situation, but I have specified a Fire Door on a final exit before. There are cases where you have no choice but to spec them, say if the elevation the final exit is on is only a short distance from the site boundary and you can't have the risk of flame reaching the boundary. I'm not saying this is the case here, but not all cases are black and white.

sydthebeat

its very easy to explain why its needed though, if you were the one who actually prepared the FSC report.... its very strange that the reasons for the FDs were not forth coming beyond a very questionable excuse

No6

Right from my reading of the situation

1) A fire door may be required on a final exit, proximity to boundries being one good reason for one. The fire dept could well have insisted on one and / or conditioned it into the fire cert ( I am assuming there is one!)

2) The architect may not have prepared the fire cert, I used to do lots for various offices around as they didnt do them themselves. They may not know why they needed one just that they did!!

3) If its for the HSE it would want to be right, if its conditioned in a firecert then theres no choice but to put it in.

sinnerboy

Re entrant angles are another cause to place FD30's on a Final Exit i.e. where owing to the layout an adjacent room if on fire would prejudice the safety of the Final Exit.

I wonder was an FSC obtained in the OP's case?

Ronan H

sinnerboy wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronan H
On point 1, it wasn't a new build. It was a change of use situation. There was no tendering process etc. involved.

Why not ?

I presume you mean why no tendering process? Because it wasn't a major operation I guess. A few fire doors and a fire detection / alarm system. Hardly worth lengthening the process further at the frontend by a tendering process. I didn't appoint the architect so I don't know why there was no tendering process for sure but this is what I imagine...

sinnerboy wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronan H
The delay occurred because it took that long to get the door made and installed. We had all the other fire safety work done when it came to light that the external doors needed to be replaced.

Who was acting as contractor and why did s/he not order the FD30's in time ?

THis is not the fault of the contractor.

As I explained above, it only came to light after we had the fire system in place and all the internal fire doors installed, that we needed to also replace the front and back doors, and from that point onwards it took six weeks until they were installed. If we had known at the start that they needed to be replaced, we would have done it along with everything else.

That is not a contractor issue. I had been dealing with the architect all along and there was no mention of the front and back doors until the other work was done, and it is not specified on the drawings either.

sinnerboy wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronan H
This six week delay directly impacted on the overall timescale because at the time it was the only thing outstanding. We had to wait until it was done before we could get the architect to sign off on all the work.

Well works should not be signed off if all items required are not in place. Think of your safety and all the staff and young people etc. etc.

I presume you are emphasising the point that work should not be signed off on until it is all complete? Of course, that's a no brainer, but we could have signed off six weeks earlier if we had known about the front and back doors at the start of the process.

sinnerboy wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronan H
On point 2, I totally agree that he should be able to point me towards specific regulations on the issue. He did allude to section 1.5 of the document he sent me, i.e. TGD B (presumably). This is the section that deals with escape routes in dwelling houses, but I can't find anything there. All it says is the usual stuff about facilitating fast egress and being lit properly etc. Not a dickiebird about fire protection.


Out of curiosity , on what basis was the Architect appointed ? Do you know ?

No I don't know for sure. It might have been a recommendation or the director may have worked with him before etc.? I'm just guessing.

Ronan H

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I had to laugh at this....:D

It seems a strange situation, but I have specified a Fire Door on a final exit before. There are cases where you have no choice but to spec them, say if the elevation the final exit is on is only a short distance from the site boundary and you can't have the risk of flame reaching the boundary. I'm not saying this is the case here, but not all cases are black and white.

I appreciate that there are times when a fire door may be specified on a final exit point, but I'm sure in all those cases there is a verifiable reason for it. After numerous conversations with the architect about it, the best I could get from him was the reason specified earlier in the thread.

sydthebeat wrote: »

its very easy to explain why its needed though, if you were the one who actually prepared the FSC report.... its very strange that the reasons for the FDs were not forth coming beyond a very questionable excuse

I'm sure in most cases it is very easy to explain, but in this case the reason put forward was weak, and there is no supporting documentation as far as I can see. As I mentioned earlier, there is no mention of final exit doors beings pecified in either the drawings, the fire safety certificate report, or the FSC conditions.

No6 wrote: »

Right from my reading of the situation

1) A fire door may be required on a final exit, proximity to boundries being one good reason for one. The fire dept could well have insisted on one and / or conditioned it into the fire cert ( I am assuming there is one!)

2) The architect may not have prepared the fire cert, I used to do lots for various offices around as they didnt do them themselves. They may not know why they needed one just that they did!!

3) If its for the HSE it would want to be right, if its conditioned in a firecert then theres no choice but to put it in.

1. As above, it is not conditioned in any documentation.

2. That's not good enough for me. Having asked the architect to clarify it a number of times, the least he could do is find out the actual reason, if indeed there is a genuine reason, and even though it is not evidenced anywhere.

3. See answer 1.

sinnerboy wrote: »

Re entrant angles are another cause to place FD30's on a Final Exit i.e. where owing to the layout an adjacent room if on fire would prejudice the safety of the Final Exit.

I wonder was an FSC obtained in the OP's case?

See my response to Laughing Poor Uncle Tom.