Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi , looking for some feedback on anyone who has installed the above...good or bad
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Do you mean Door Guards or is that a trade name?
Assuming then that you are referring to the plastic devices that prevent finger entrapment in door hinge areas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We have them and they do just what the promotional material says. There is also Freedor which replaces the normal door closer. I imagine there are other versions of these available but I'm not aware of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would not rely overly on the sound activated devices, and would invest in self closers linked to the alarm system. I have all to often heard the fire alarms go off and the sound activated devices are still holding the doors open - in my opinion they are next to useless as a fire protection measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
SBH wrote:I would not rely overly on the sound activated devices, and would invest in self closers linked to the alarm system. I have all to often heard the fire alarms go off and the sound activated devices are still holding the doors open - in my opinion they are next to useless as a fire protection measure.
Have to disagree with SBH, I have seen these devices used and they are effective provided they are within range of the alarm sounders. What is more they are acceptable to the FRS in my area. Of course self closers linked to the alarm system are the best option but not all companies have the financial means to do that and also probably would not want the disruption associated with their installation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Okay, I now know what you're referring to; the stand-alone devices that hold open a fire door and release it upon the activation an audible alarm.
Pros - They're cheap and easy to install and tend to do the job.
Cons - Depending on the floor covering they don't always tend to hold fast and the doors either close completely or at the halfway point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
I have these installed at several premises across our estate.
As long as they're located within a certain distance from the alarm sounders (as outlined in the instructions), and are tested regularly then they should be OK.
I've had no problems with ours so far, and some of them are around 3 - 4 years old.
With regard to floor covering, if they are installed on the door properly, and the foot plate for the 'pin' is correctly installed, then closing should not be a problem. The only time they'll not allow the door to close fully is if they're installed too low, or the floor is uneven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Nick House wrote:
As long as they're located within a certain distance from the alarm sounders (as outlined in the instructions), and are tested regularly then they should be OK.
I've had no problems with ours so far, and some of them are around 3 - 4 years old.
With regard to floor covering, if they are installed on the door properly, and the foot plate for the 'pin' is correctly installed, then closing should not be a problem. The only time they'll not allow the door to close fully is if they're installed too low, or the floor is uneven.
I've also had no problems with these - they all close correctly when the alarms sound. Just make sure they are fitted correctly and regularly checked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What happens in the event of common cause failure (Alarm sounder failure)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bleve wrote:What happens in the event of common cause failure (Alarm sounder failure) Fire door remains open, fire, smoke and hot gasses spread through compartmentation, building lost, everyone killed, fire risk assessor goes to jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Better than wedges, fire extinguishers, chairs, piles of paper.
Max and Bleve, there's nothing quite like a bit of OTT hysteria in relation to health and safety... is it Friday already?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Max/ Bleve - surely this would all come down to risk assessment/ fire risk of the premises? Obviously, should there be a higher fire risk, etc., then these would not be suitable. However, for the type of premises on our estate, our insurers are happy with the DorGard units.
Common sense, common safety?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not common sense at all!!!
Yes it comes down to risk assessment. These sound actuated devices are not suitable for many applications,especially where the RA concludes that a Cat A or B device is required. Read BS 7273-4.
The following is particularly relevant
"Self-contained devices that are not connected directly to a fire alarm system may be acceptable where a site specific risk assessment can show that they are appropriate. Such devices are unlikely to be suitable for use on doors protecting single stairways or other critical means of escape"
S4B
Since when has consideration of CCF been deemed OTT?????
Yes it must be Friday indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nick House wrote:Obviously, should there be a higher fire risk, etc., then these would not be suitable. Not necessarily, these devices may also not be suitable for premises with lower or moderate fire risk or "slow" fire scenarios. The occupancy/demographics may also be an over riding fire. Not so Obvious at all!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Not that I want to get into this too much but all of our key doors are directly connected to the fire alarm system, only where an assessment has deemed it suitable are the separate, sound activated, systems in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stuff4blokes wrote:Better than wedges, fire extinguishers, chairs, piles of paper.
Max and Bleve, there's nothing quite like a bit of OTT hysteria in relation to health and safety... is it Friday already? I wasn't being OTT and was merely offering a flipant response to beleve's comment. I have installed (or had) these devices once before and that was following my FRA of one of our operational premises where I found a fire door wedged open. Yes we could have gone to the time, trouble and expense of having something connected directly to the alarm system, but the following factors came into play. (1) the door was in constant use, hence the wedge (2) we were moving (and now have) off that site and disposing of the premesis, so the investment wasn't proportionate (3) the staff made sure the door was closed at the end of the day regadless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
bleve wrote:
Not necessarily, these devices may also not be suitable for premises with lower or moderate fire risk or "slow" fire scenarios.
The occupancy/demographics may also be an over riding fire. Not so Obvious at all!!!!
Indeed. However, my point still stands - it's all down to risk assessment. For example, with the full blown datacentre we are in the purpose of building, we have door closers that are linked to the fire alarm system, key fob entry (fobs are only issued to certain staff), cctv, drenching system (with a 'double knock' activation system, with a delay before the drenching is activated to ensure staff can leave the area), direct link to emergency services - to name but a few protection measures. We also have numerous other prevention measures in place that I haven't the time to detail here. However, in other properties, conventional LD1 or LD3 alarm systems, appropriate portable fire extinguishers and (where appropriate) DorGards are installed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
*process, not purpose* - oops!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
We use these in a number of our properties and the only issue we have with them is that they tend to activate to noise from other sources rather than just our alarms - however this is merely an inconvenience and does not compromise fire safety.
I would agree that their suitability is very much related to the assessment and type of premises where the may be used (and the specific location within the premises). We used them as an interim measure in our care homes before upgrade work and when work was completed then used them in a variety of different 'lower risk' premises.
Very useful and cost effective in my opinion.
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.