Sounds like a lovely door. Do you think I could get one for my living room?

My original post was made on the back of a critical review of a number of FRA's made by what should be credible organisations. In particular, I have recently carried out a scope of work where I ahve been asked to provide a second opinion/appraise the findings of a FRA. I have not seen any evidence thus far, that individuals carrying out FRA take into account the impact on the result of the FRA due to defects associated with fire doors.

Thought not

Heather, Unfortunately, although it may not be practical to condemn such doors, it is not possible to demonstrate to a client that such a door is capable of fulfilling its intended function of fire resistance, integrity and smoke control. In the context of my posting, I have had to offer a second opinion and condemn 200 plus double leaf doors based on the calculated level of heat flux through the gwg and calculated transmision of ambiant smoke in excess of 3m^3/M/hr.

It will cost a few bob, that why I have recomended full fire test of a sample door set. My main area of interest is where this has been overlooked by others offering FRA

of course where the glazing exceeds 50% of door area and 0.65 m^2 unless glazing has insulative properties it will fail. As I have stated, am interested where this has been captured by the great and the good of FRA. To be honest would drive anappliance through the majority of FRA that I have seen. I cannot wait until these are examoned in a court of law

The fire risk associated with the door will need to be considered as part of the buildings assessment - i.e what is the ocupancy, what fire detection is present, what is the level of management available, where is the door located, waht is the fire load in the area it protects and how important it is in preventing smoke and heat into the area it closes does it require to fulfil a com[artment pretection role above 60 mins etc. - this door would appear to meet a E20 or even E 30 standard- if in doubt put a class O panel on either side of and ensure the frame is tight to with in 3mm of door

Chris, Door set is installed at Residential premises. Although the doors were installed many years ago and would have been acceptable at that time, in the context of modern day FRA, it is impossible to comply with recent performance requirements. Consider that the polished Georgian wired glazing exceeds max permitted area of non insulating glass, as a result the fire integrity of the beading holding the glass in place may also be compromised due to thermal flux likely to result in the non-piloted ignition of the beading. My biggest concern, relates to the apparent lack of understanding or knowledge from many fire risk assessors relating to the function of intumescent seals or cold smoke seals. More often than not, it is a case that seals are in place and move on. Rarely, is consideration given to the leakage value being exceeded by even a 1mm gap. I am of the opinion that many individuals are carrying out FRA without realising that they don’t know what they don’t know.

BLEVE Whilst what you say may be correct the type of questions you have asked with regards to the integraty of a fire door can only be determined by having at least two of the door sets tested in a fire situation to the relevent British Standard, one as is and the other with any necessart inprovements required. One thing quite often over looked with fire doors is the standard of installation, does this meet the relevent requirements and BS. I would recomend any one who carries out FRA attend a one day seminair given by Chilten Fire that shows a live fire door test on one fitted correctly and the other with minor fitting faults - a 60 minute fire rated door set lasted all of 15 minutes. There are so many ifs and buts with regard to FRA's carried out in older buildings and the standards of some FRA's can be somewhat dubious. Lets not critisise each other with sarcastic comments but make constructive recomendations. As an ex Firefighter I have seen both good and bad installation and the consequences of the bad. So as Safety Professionals, involved in Fire Safety lets strive to make this world a safer place for every body - Lifes too short to be bitchy

Bleve by name----bleve by nature!

It sounds to me by the tone of this whole thread that the OP had his own agenda from the word go. That agenda being that in his opinion most people who conduct FRAs are not competent to do so or maybe I have misunderstood him. Maybe if he had been a bit clearer about what he wanted from the thread instead of just writing "discuss" like some sort of frustrated exam invigilator he may have had a more serious reply. I'm with Alex, it does sound like a lovely door. My advice is be a bit more up front about what you want, instead of laying a trap and waiting to pounce on anyone who wanders near or doesn't meet your obviously superior standards

Please could I remind you all of the forum rules, an extract of which is copied below, which are designed to keep proceedings relatively friendly and welcoming to others: 2. You mustn’t antagonise other users or post any information that could be considered defamatory, obscene, abusive, offensive, inflammatory, unlawful or creates a risk to a person’s safety or health. 3. You mustn’t indulge in bullying, aggressive, discriminatory or nuisance behaviour. Please be respectful towards other guests, IOSH members, moderators and IOSH staff. Please remember, our forums are used by guests who might not have a background in occupational safety and health. Inappropriate postings made towards guests aren’t tolerated. If you’re an IOSH member, bear in mind the Code of Conduct, in particular: "Members shall not behave in a way which may be considered inappropriate to other members or staff of the Institution." (Paragraph 10) Please also try not to stray too much from the original topic Jane

Chris I do not see it that guidance accepts or condones a lesser standard of FRA.Are we saying that because a smoke seal is in place that it is effective? these are subject to errors of fitting and wear! How many people have not recognised that a gap of circa 0.75 - 1mm may result in the limit of smoke transmission being exceeded. Similarly, how many people have looked at a fire door c/w gwg and thought nothing of an absence of insulative properties, heat flux and likely modes of failure. By the same token, how many "Fire Risk Assessors" take cogniscence of fire load, rate of burning, smoke evolution, time to restriction of visibility, location and positioning of signage t/ic visibility etc. I agree with the many training organisations when after 1-5 days training, they advise individuals to stick to the FRA of simple and low risk premises. To others that say they have never taken the time or trouble of calculating such matters, or that A member of the fire survace has carried out a vague review of your FRA, that does not equate to the FRA being suitable or sufficient, only the courts can decide on that matter. Any individual that carries out any risk assessment and ignores or misses an aspect later considered as contributing to a loss, then the RA will be judged as being deficient. To those Fire Risk Assessors out there, reflect where you have not given due consideration to matters outside your checklists and maybe start to worry. Although, to be fare the legislation provides a nice little get out of jail clause and places any responsibility on the shoulders of the responsible person.

PL53, I have spent 20 plus years carrying out FRA for thousands of organisations, so what.

I guess we shouldn't raise issues such as assessing linings, fire resistant abilities of compartment walls, inspecting voids.

What I would like to ask you is where do you see the line between design risk assessment for fire safety systems and general fire risk assessment? Indeed do you see them as the same thing or not? Pete, A lot of my work involves design r/a & documentation of fire safety strategy, where it is necessary to carry out detailed evaluation and r/a by calculation and modelling. I am a bit confused with the use of the term general fire risk assessment and more so by the interpretation that “the general guidance and codes are clearly written as if they are different aspects and thus allow a more general approach” To my mind the RR (Fire Safety) Order is very clear: Risk assessment 9. —(1) The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he needs to take. Meaning of "general fire precautions" 4. —(1) In this Order "general fire precautions" in relation to premises means— (a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises; (b) measures in relation to the means of escape from the premises; (c) measures for securing that, at all material times, the means of escape can be safely and effectively used; (d) measures in relation to the means for fighting fires on the premises; (e) measures in relation to the means for detecting fire on the premises and giving warning in case of fire on the premises; and (f) measures in relation to the arrangements for action to be taken in the event of fire on the premises, including— (i) measures relating to the instruction and training of employees; and (ii) measures to mitigate the effects of the fire. I suspect this is based on an assumption that building regs approval and other design controls should ensure a safe design for fire precautions leaving the end user to rely upon that design in their risk assessment. The difficulty in this is that design can be flawed, installation may not have been up to the requirements of the design, passive and active precautions may have been modified or not maintained, etc. Many fire precautions have a finite working life. As an example, I doubt that many of those who complete day to day workplace risk assessment would have a detailed engineering knowledge of machinery safety and yet can produce s&s assessments through relying upon the safe design and subsequent mtce and ops provided by the suppliers. How many machinery risk assessments have we seen that are not S&S, indeed as you know well very few would accept that CE marking equates to safe design and I would suggest that carrying out a machinery based risk assessment to the requirements of Directive specific EHSR’s or PUWER is again a specialist area. Ultimately, in order to complete a S&S FRA, it must be necessary to take into account the fire integrity, insulation, fire loading, fire spread, occupancy, smoke build up/obscuration, evacuation time based on these factors. Only in this context can a FRA be viewed as being S&S. Let’s assume we carry out a FRA, consider a situation whereby fire glazing installed on an escape route in a premises constructed some 30 years ago. The risk assessor examines the door and records that a GWG fire door is provided. There is no possible way that the risk assessor can guarantee that the door in question actually provides 30 minutes integrity and in actual fact would have no insulating properties. Similarly, Joe risk assessor looks at a cold smoke seal and 1 mm gap between door and frame (or possibly not). Does he take notice of the impact of cold smoke spread and possible impact on the escape route?

Bleve, thanks for the reply. I do empathise with your technical standpoint even though I cannot comment upon it directly as I am not competent to do so. I do have a remaining doubt though. If I read the various guidance documents (from communities.gov.uk) as a non-fire safety specialist, I find references such as: "This guide is for all employers, managers, occupiers and owners of factories and warehouses"...."helps you to carry out a fire risk assessment and identify the general fire precautions you need to have in place." It also clearly states "Where the building has been recently constructed or significantly altered, the fire detection and warning arrangements, escape routes and facilities for the fire and rescue service should have been designed, constructed and installed in accordance with current building regulations. In such cases, it is likely that these measures will be satisfactory as long as they are being properly maintained and no significant increase in risk has been introduced." Later in the guide it has under recommended monthly checks "Check that all fire doors are in good working order and closing correctly and that the frames and seals are intact." So, from where I sit, I can complete a general fire risk assessment which follows the guidance and includes checks on detailed arrangements for things like monthly checks on fire doors. If in place, completed by staff trained in what to check for, recorded etc then OK. If not in place I then recommend we might need to talk to someone like you. Is that perfect? Maybe not in some situations but it is practicable for the vast majority and I might be persuaded to argue such in a court if required--- but, of course, hope I never have to!

Pete As you have noticed: "Where the building has been recently constructed or significantly altered, the fire detection and warning arrangements, escape routes and facilities for the fire and rescue service SHOULD have been designed, constructed and installed in accordance with current building regulations. In such cases, it is LIKELY that these measures will be satisfactory as long as they are being properly maintained and no significant increase in risk has been introduced." My concern is that within the numerous FRA that I have examined, these issues are subject to nothing more than a cursery examination (mainly due to lack of knowledge). The guidance also states More complex premises will probably need to be assessed by a person who has comprehensive training or experience in fire risk assessment. In addition, the guidance states that it is not to be applied to new buildings or design and is not to be applied to buildings not recently constructed. I do not have a problem with any person carrying out a FRA but I have now seen too many examples where those carrying out this work are jeopardising the life safety of building occupants due to lack of knowledger and a failure to recognise limitations. If that upsets people, then so be but at this stage we are about due for another fire tragedy and the current legislation or lack thereof will bring this about sooner than later.

Goodness Me! I leave this forum for a week or two and then come back to this thread. Bleve you will know that I am well and truly in your camp although I think you have been a bit more forceful with what you have said than I have been. I am not sure if that tragedy has already happened with the Penhallow hotel fire. I understand that the fire risk assessors during the inquiry were advised to not say anything for fear of incriminating themselves. Whether this will lead to a prosecution or not I do not know. I, like Bleve, have come across many fra's where bad advice is given. For example one fire risk assessor advised a landlord to insert intumescent strips on all fire doors on the main stairwell without taking into account that the stair was pressurised. Other fire risk assessors seem to accept that a fire alarm has had a 25% quarterly test without knowing which 25% were tested so consequently on the next 25% test they do not know if was the same as the last 25% or a new 25%. As for the original question, replacing 200 fire doors because there is no way of proving the existing doors is a big call. Before doing so I would look at the other measures in place, for example is there an L1 system where only an L3 system would normally have been required? is there a sprinkler system in place? are there alternative means of escape available and if so what are the travel distances involved? If there are no compensating measures and, as you have said, it is a sleeping risk, then particularly with Lakanal House in mind you are probably left with no alternative.

I've made a couple of points in this topic and do not wish to take sides as I can say I agree with some of the points that both sides are making. I do fire risk assessments, as far as I am concerned in accordance with the guidance document and do not see the need to go further, although I can understand people with deeper knowledge will apply that knowledge and sometimes be unable to see the "other side's" point of view. The Fire Risk Management journal May 2010 has a number of articles relating to fire risk assessment and among them are the inconsistent enforcement by fire brigades, the fines/prosecutions of all sizes of businesses, an article about B&B owners not realising the high cost of fire safety measures to comply with the rrfso and small domestic premises used as holiday cottages falling within the scope. There are also concerns from fire brigades about identifying or not being able to identify the "responsible person". There can be no doubt that debates like this one here will go on and on for a long time to come.