Fire doors and smoke alarms

[Nakajo]

I believe that the reason why combined ionisation and optical alarms are hard to come by is associated with the ongoing maintenance of the product. Nest make a sexy product that can be adjusted for use in a kitchen - but it's a bit expensive.

 

[Nakajo]

Bathroom doors rarely need to be fire doors.

 

[Ian H]

This shows roughly the 11 I think I need:

 

[Doggit]

You'd normally have one on the door to the loft, not one in each loft room, so the layout must be an interesting one. Although you have 4 rooms on the ground floor, as the escape route to the front door has been protected, there's be no need to go out through the kitchen, so they shouldn't need doing. My BCO said that as long as I had a fire door at the bottom of the stairs to the loft, then he'd accept door closers on the other door.

Just got the pictures; yes, you're stuffed. Have a talk to him about options.

 

[Ian H]

Although the ones I'm looking at are 'only' £148 each so not the end of the world.

 

[Doggit]

You're still going to need the door closers, but maybe different types if you keep the existing doors, but see if the BCO will accept retardant paint on the existing doors.

 

[Nakajo]

Did Frank Gehry design that building? Incidentally, I've never had a BCO request closers.

 

[Doggit]

I believe that the reason why combined ionisation and optical alarms are hard to come by is associated with the ongoing maintenance of the product

They are designed for different types of fire, but whilst the idea at first seems sensible, they would pick up any type of fire (ie burnt toast when you only want to check for smouldering fires) rather than being for specific purposes.

Now having said that, if he googles combined Smoke and Optical alarms, he might well find one; you can now get combined heat and smoke, and combined smoke and CO, so there's new stuff coming on the market all the time - and some of the proper fire alarms sensors from Fike go even further, so maybe a small system would be better for him.

 

[Nakajo]

I doubt I can provide a coherent for why, but combined smoke and CO just *feels* like a bad idea to me.

 

[JohnD]

fire doors aren't required on bathrooms, but IMO their substantial build and weight gives an impression of quality that a hollow hardboard door can't match, and their mass also muffles undesirable noises from within. Hollow doors are very ineffective at reducing sound.

 

[^woody^]

Hi, a few more thoughts on this. My real issue is that I am being asked - by the building inspector - to accept that 'complying with building regs' = 'safe house' and that 'non compliance' = 'dangerous house' when the underlying risks are more complicated

Nakajo - you mention Grenfell. As far as I know (and I appreciate no-one will know for certain until all enquiries are complete) the tower had recently been subject to major refurbishment, which had been signed off as compliant with building regs. Aren't the deaths of 71 people evidence that our existing fire safety regime is catastrophically unfit for purpose?

You also say my statistical argument is flawed - you're right - but I disagree with your statement that we generally live in building regs compliant properties. On my way to the station this morning I walked past maybe 100 houses. One or two may have had a full rewire in the last couple of years since latest Part P/British Standards updates but the vast majority would not be compliant with current regs for electrical safety. I think the most you can say is we generally live in houses that complied with the building regs that were in force at the time they were built or subject to major work - but since then the houses have deteriorated and the regs have got stricter. A second hand car that passed its MOT 10 years ago but has not been tested since is unlikely to be safer than a 3 year old car that has just failed its first MOT because of a failed brake light.

Lastly the Part B approved document is 84 pages long. It has sections on escaping from fire, detecting fire, stopping fire spreading etc. Why is there no section, or any substantial details as far as I can see, on preventing fire from starting? Surely the first, and most important, section should be fire prevention and anything else is then just contingency planning in case the prevention fails?

Anyway, off to choose some new fire alarms... On that point is there a reason no-one seems to make combined ionisation and optical alarms?

Bear in mind that the Approved Documents are just a guide, not law or prescriptive, and fire safety is based on risk.

If you are able (qualified) to do you own risk assessment, or get someone suitable to do one for you then, you may have other options - as long as the assessor is willing to put his job or freedom on the line on the back of his report.

 

[Nakajo]

JohnD - Absolutely - I was thinking more about smoke seals and intumescant strips.

 

[Doggit]

but combined smoke and CO just *feels* like a bad idea to me

Nope, great for wood burning stove installations where the CO is mandatory, and the smoke is a sensible option.

 

[Nakajo]

I guess I envisage a situation whereby the smoke alarm is activated just before bedtime. Someone 'temporarily' disables it, with the intention of reconnecting it in the morning, but inadvertently disables the CO detector too.

 

[James999ft]

A quick google gives an estimate, based on fire service survey in Liverpool, that fewer than 10% of house have CO monitors fitted so say 50m people in UK do not have this protection but only 30 deaths from CO poisoning every year. This means that for every night someone spends in a house with no CO monitor there is a 1 in 600 million chance of dying - or say 1 in 300,000 over an estimated 5 year life of a CO monitor. Seriously, I wonder what the odds of dying while fitting one? You'd have to cross a few roads, or maybe drive somewhere, climb a ladder and make connections to electricity...