Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 13 October 2009 13:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Morgan Current work premises is a two storey building consisting of several offices. On the second floor a number of the office doors are fitted with self closing hinges. All the offices lead into a corridor (not a working area,no equipment in the corridor). Invariably the doors are wedged open. Having completed a RA of the area I can see no reason why these hinges can not be removed. Please advise if there is any reason why I can not remove these hinges. Additionally the doors are not fitted with a glass panel.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 13 October 2009 13:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By D. Hilton More information required Length of corridor? dead end conditions? Occupancy? Provision of alternative means of escape? Detection & alarm system? Activities carried out? You have assessed this building with the benefit of visual indicators and have made your conclusion based on RA, why ask us to second guess your conclusion with limited information?
Admin  
#3 Posted : 13 October 2009 13:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By D. Hilton Not withstanding the above, removal of the self closing devices will only result a situation where it is not necessary to wedge the doors open.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 13 October 2009 21:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Crim If the doors are "fire doors" they will have been designed in as part of the premises fire precautions and should not be wedged open as this will affect their purpose. You can and should remove the wedges. If there is a need for the doors to be kept open unless there is a fire situation then arrange for the magnet type system that keeps the doors open but releases the doors to close upon actuation of the fire alarm.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 14 October 2009 01:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor Glass vision panels only tended to be required for doors serving inner rooms. The doors in question sound like fire-resisting self-closing doors designed to protect the means of escape. Inspecting fire officers have been known to serve notices upon employers who allow fire doors to be wedged open. The fire risk assessment (carried out by a competent person) should consider the current arrangements in the light of published guidance for the type of premises. You may be able to get some guidance from the local fire officer. It has been known for additional automatic fire detection in each room and corridor to be accepted where doors are regularly wedged but the local situation (including occupancy and travel distances) will need to be taken into account in considering that option.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 14 October 2009 10:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Messy Shaw Ken. Whilst I agree with you that glass vision panels (VP) are a useful method of dealing with the risks posed by inner rooms, VPs are useful and accepted in a range of circumstances, so to say they are "only for inner rooms" is a little misleading (and perhaps, this might not have been what you were trying to say). The most obvious use of a VP is on cross corridor fire doors or any door which opens in either direction to ensure that the door isn't opened into a person on the other side. Indeed, full height VPs are not unusual in Schools or where kids or wheelchair users are expected to allow a better field of vision. They are also useful to share light (as in a borrowed light) from a room with windows to a dark corridor. I know this is going slightly off thread, but I wanted to clarify that VPs are acceptable in almost any situation where a fire door is required.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 15 October 2009 01:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor Nice to hear from you again Messy. I didn't say that they are "only for inner rooms" (despite your inverted commas). I said that "glass vision panels only tended to be required for doors serving inner rooms" - a reference to earlier fire certificates and guidance documents. As a health and safety practitioner I am well aware of the value of vision panels in other doors and have frequently asked for their installation. As to whether they would be useful in David's case it would be a matter for further risk assessment and any addition to existing fire doors would need to preserve their integrity and fire resistance. My main concern here is, of course, the fire risk to the means of escape.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 15 October 2009 09:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Crim I'm not sure if this is off the track as we are seeking a way of preventing the fire doors being wedged open. If viewing from either side of the doors would ease the prolem then that could be the answer, as long as correctly installed and the correct glazing type is used. Regarding inner rooms, an inner room without afd would have a vision panel fitted, this could have been fitted to the door to the inner room if it would provide the required vision. I have had experience of a lady carrying a tray of tea/coffee being hit by a fire door being opened toward her. There was no vision panel in the door. Would this have been an issue for the fire risk assessment or the risk assessment for the workplace I wonder? Possibly both?
Admin  
#9 Posted : 15 October 2009 11:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By shaun mckeever David, as mentioned earlier, there is insufficient information to give a reasonable answer. If the corridor is meant to be a fire protected corridor then you would expect the doors leading onto it to be fitted with self-closing devices. If the travel distances and directions of escape are sufficient then there may be no need for self-closing devices to be fitted. If you could provide a bit more info it would help.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 15 October 2009 15:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By FAH OK David - back to your original question and taking the intervening responses into account - most of which I agree with incidentally. If you have a problem with doors required to protect people in the event of fire being wedged open; the first question has to be "Why do people do this?". In general, it tends to be because the doors in their current form present inconvenient obstacles to the passage of people going about their work. On that assumption [there are others, but this is the most common], get the offending doors fitted with magnetic release catches that are linked into the Fire Alarm system. So, in normal use the doors are held [not wedged] open by the catches; when the alarm is sounded the catches release the doors so that they can the n provide the segregation protection for which they're designed. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#11 Posted : 15 October 2009 22:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Crim Frank, that's exactly what I said on Tuesday - two days ago!
Admin  
#12 Posted : 16 October 2009 08:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By FAH Thank you Crim - I was simply reinforcing your earlier observation. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#13 Posted : 16 October 2009 08:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Quinn Safety Hi David, just to add, we have resolved a similar problem in one of our buildings using a door guard device which holds the door open but releases it when the fire alarm sounds. These are battery operated devices and as such fail to safe. They are not cheap but it was more cost effective for us than hard wiring an electromagnetic relase system into our fire alarm. I've put a couple of sites below where you can get details and prices. http://www.doorguard.net http://www.firesafe.co.u...Details1.asp?pid=DORGARD Regards, John
Admin  
#14 Posted : 16 October 2009 16:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By DPK John Quin Safety The Doorguard system is very effective but it only fails to safe if there is a fault on the unit or there is a low battery, it does not unfortunately fail to safe if the fire alarm does not sound, as hard wired electromagnetic ones will. I am not being pedantic just helping to inform those who do not know this, unless there have been very recent changes. Why is this an important fact, because IMO this makes them unsuitable for sleeping accommodation and some other places of work. However they are very good for other places such as offices as described in the original post, I think. DPK
Admin  
#15 Posted : 22 October 2009 14:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By mattbr Not sure if anyone is following this discussion anymore... Can anyone point me to the relevant piece of legislation that specifically states the fire doors cannot be propped open. I fully understand this in relation to Fire Extinguishers as this would be part of RR(FS)O and MHSWR in terms of interfering with items re Health and Safety and non-automatic fire fighting/detection equipment. However, where does it say that you will be fined/given an enforcement notice if you prop doors open with say a wedge. I am of the opinion (mis-informed maybe) that if an office is in full time occupation then it is permissible. When the last person leaves then (for any period of time) it is their responsibility to remove door stay.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 22 October 2009 14:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By mattbr Not sure if anyone is following this discussion anymore... Can anyone point me to the relevant piece of legislation that specifically states the fire doors cannot be propped open. I fully understand this in relation to Fire Extinguishers as this would be part of RR(FS)O and MHSWR in terms of interfering with items re Health and Safety and non-automatic fire fighting/detection equipment. However, where does it say that you will be fined/given an enforcement notice if you prop doors open with say a wedge. I am of the opinion (mis-informed maybe) that if an office is in full time occupation then it is permissible. When the last person leaves then (for any period of time) it is their responsibility to remove door stay.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 22 October 2009 14:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By mattbr Not sure if anyone is following this discussion anymore... Can anyone point me to the relevant piece of legislation that specifically states the fire doors cannot be propped open. I fully understand this in relation to Fire Extinguishers as this would be part of RR(FS)O and MHSWR in terms of interfering with items re Health and Safety and non-automatic fire fighting/detection equipment. However, where does it say that you will be fined/given an enforcement notice if you prop doors open with say a wedge. I am of the opinion (mis-informed maybe) that if an office is in full time occupation then it is permissible. When the last person leaves then (for any period of time) it is their responsibility to remove door stay. Comments?
Admin  
#18 Posted : 22 October 2009 15:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Crim Why three times? We are probably all fed up with your refusal to listen to our contributions. If a fire door it will self close, it has to because - unlike people it will not know if there is a fire. If propped open, and there is a fire it will not close and the fire will spread. You cannot rely on people removing wedges in a fire situation. Isn't it obvious that the fsrro is law and if you ignore the law and get caught you will be prosecuted? I hope noone comes to any harm while your doors are propped open.
Admin  
#19 Posted : 22 October 2009 19:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Messy Shaw Matt. Listen carefully as I am only going to say this once (and not three times!!) Article 14 of the RR(FS)O 2205 covers 'Emergency routes and exits' Article 14(2) and 14(2)(b) say:....... (2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons— (b) in the event of danger, it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible; So - to put it another way:... If a fire door has been fitted to safeguard the means of escape (ie ensure that MOE will be available in the event of fire) it must be kept closed/locked or clear so that it will work effectively when required. As they are so damn expensive, it is rarely the case that fire doors have be fitted unless some code requires them to be there for fire safety reasons. It may be reasonable to have a management system in place - as you describe- for the last person out to close the door. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the fire service (and courts) would be reluctant to accept this system unless you had a very good rationale as to why you had adopted this system and you could prove it would work every time. In a former life I have audited many buildings who have had doors wedged or tied. Managers would be quick to tell me that it was very hot in the room so a 'last man out' system was in place. I tended to ignore it and carry on with the inspection. At some point, I would ask the persons in the room to leave and tell me what they knew about the extinguishers in the corridor or where the nearest MCP was. On every occasion I tried this, the wedged door was left open, even when the 'last man' had left. This system rarely works so is rarely accepted.
Admin  
#20 Posted : 23 October 2009 10:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stephen.Jones Messy, Can you contact me off forum to discuss,and I have a similar problem and would welcome some advice. Thanks
Admin  
#21 Posted : 23 October 2009 14:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By mattbr OK logged back in this morning to see whether there was an any update and saw three postings from me. Sorry about that, I was having a problem with Firefox's cache losing the content of my post and when I tried reloading the page wasn't aware that it posted each time. Crim was your response about refusal to listen to posts directed at me? I'm assuming not seeing as this was the first post (albeit three times) I have made on the subject. If it was I am sorry if I have offended you in some way. What I was asking was some clarification about where it is explicitly stated that holding a fire door open with anything would end up with a fine/notice etc. Messy, Thanks for the points noted. M.
Admin  
#22 Posted : 23 October 2009 16:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Crim Matt you have not offended me in any way at all, no need for apology. I suppose I get a bit frustrated at some people who ask for assistance and then just keep on asking. For example, why ask about holding self closing doors open when the self closing devices are designed to close the doors? Have a good weekend all.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.