Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert Woods
Should the final exit door of an escape route always open outwards? Is this covered by H&S legislation or building regs?
Thanks in advance.
Bob Woods
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Battye
Building regulations Approved Document B suggests that a room (or building) capable of an occupancy of more than 50 should open outwards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
The Building Regs (Approved Document B, section 6.14) say this:
"The door of any doorway or exit should, if reasonably practicable, be hung to open in the direction of escape, and should always do so if the number of persons that might be expected to use the door at the time of a fire is more than 60.
Note: With respect to industrial activities where there is a very high fire risk with potential for rapid fire growth, there will be a requirement for the door to open in the direction of escape for lower numbers than 60."
If you run a high-street shop for example you want the front door to open inwards so you don't bash passers-by by opening the door!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
I must type faster! I keep posting a reply at the same time as someone else.
John - is my copy of Approved Doc B out of date? It says 60 people.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Battye
apologies for incorrect info. Youre quite correct it is 60 - This changed in 1999. As a building control surveyor, I should know this. 50 seems memorable, 60 I believe is based on the size of two school classes in one room (30 per class)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
It's worth noting the reasonably practicable bit on this one as, whilst the outward opening principle is well applied to internal doors on escape routes, there is sometimes a conflict with security interests with final exit doors (particularly normal entrance doors) and Building Control Officers and Fire Authorities tend to take this into account.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
John - 60 is roughly one class nowadays isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Battye
whatch it! I'm still a Blairite at heart
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Battye
Ken
The word "reasonably practicable" rarely appears in the Building Regulations.
The word used is "appropriate"
If security is an issue then I would draw your attention to caluse 6.12 of Approved Document B
We would rarely accept locking or security devices on a door unless the building is appropriately managed (e.g single proprieter premises or large leisure buildings that have good 24 hour management, stewarding & licenced by the fire authority)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert King
Just a minor add on to the discussion I believe that the door can also be double action (opens both ways)at final exit.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
You are correct in saying that 'reasonably practicable' is rarely used in the Building Regulations, John, but this is one of those rare occasions. Please see 6.14 of Approved Document B1 (2000 edition) where it states 'The door of any doorway or exit should, if reasonably practicable, be hung to open in the direction of escape, and should always do so if the number of persons that might be expected to use the door at the time of a fire is more than 60'.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.