Fireproofing an old door

[Adsibob]

I have a pair of old 1940s double doors, that are made of solid oak. They are heavy and around 42mm thick. We have got new frames with intumescent strips for them. There are two issues that I think might be picked up by my BCO (who is expecting these to comply with FD30).

 

1) each door has a couple of pretty small panes of glass which obviously won’t be fireproof. Could I fix that by adding some of this film into each pane: https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/p/d/b5005059008/

 

2) I think double doors need a “pair maker” to be made into fire doors. Anyone know if that is the case?

 

 Any other issues?

 

 Thanks

[tonyshouse]

3 hinges on each leaf 

[Adsibob]

Just bumping this up with an update. BCO was having none of it so I’m temporarily fitting some actual FD30s to get around this and get my certificate. Anybody know what requirements are for FD30 double doors where they meet? Do I need a pair maker? What about intumescent seals; are they needed where the two doors meet or is it sufficient to just have them on the doorframe?

[JohnMo]

We got around it with a special fire proof paint, we then just painted over it once we had sign off.  Wasn't cheap and had to be applied by a certified by person to keep BC happy.

[saveasteading]

A fire isn't going to burst through 40mm of oak. 

 

BCO may not understand or accept that though so new, rated  doors seems the only way.

 

Whichever pair of doors you use, the actual risk is at the joints so intumescent all round and at the junction.

In fact your nice new doors would benefit from a latch to secure one of them, and add a stop, and the works in fitting seals will then be easy.

 

Is the BCO expecting door closers too? Not much protection if standing open.

 

This seems extreme so I assume this is not a standard domestic situation.

 

 

[Adsibob]

It is a standard domestic situation, but with an open plan area in the ground floor that has no doorway between the kitchen and the stairwell, so they have made us jump through all sort of hoops. Architect pissed me off really, because originally the plan was to separate the stairwell/hallway from the kitchen with a fire curtain, he then said this would be very ugly and problematic for various other reasons and persuaded me to opt for a sprinkler system and a fire engineer report to verify that would be enough. Engineer required interlinked alarms in every room of the house plus FD30 for all “habitable” rooms. It’s all complete overkill given there is a sprinkler system throughout the ground floor as well.  Has cost an absolute fortune.

[saveasteading]

52 minutes ago, Adsibob said:

no doorway between the kitchen and the stairwell

We are having that, kitchen, stair, living room with no doors. Scottish rules, so interlinked fire alarms, and fire escape skylights. No sprinklers. Ceilings fire proof.

 

If i didn't agree this was sensible then we wouldn't have proposed it. Early warning is fundamental.

 

Too many designers can be a problem. Even 2 different fire officers or bcos will disagree and you end up with everything conceivable.

 

If there was to be a fire in the kitchen, better hear and smell it and evacuate than it build up behind the closed fire door....in my opinion.

[Adsibob]

14 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

If there was to be a fire in the kitchen, better hear and smell it and evacuate than it build up behind the closed fire door....in my opinion.

I agree with the principle, but in practice, our master bedroom is above our kitchen, and in fact the position of my head when I’m lying down on the bed is about 80cm from the location of the kitchen fire alarm. So the fire alarm in our bedroom is completely unnecessary.

[saveasteading]

Is it worth asking the bco whether, if you fit the fire door you can ommit other precautions?

I wonder what the insurance position would be if you remove a specifically required door.

[Adsibob]

4 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Is it worth asking the bco whether, if you fit the fire door you can ommit other precautions?

I wonder what the insurance position would be if you remove a specifically required door.

Well the house was built a 100 years ago, and the insurance was in place well before the building works. I’m not sure how making a minor modification to a house would invalidate the insurance.

[Simplysimon]

rebate both striking stiles, will make them slightly narrower. fit 2x concealed door bolts to the slave, intumescent strip to rebate on the master. when you have sign off, do the same to the oak doors and replace the FD30s.

[Adsibob]

3 minutes ago, Simplysimon said:

rebate both striking stiles, will make them slightly narrower. fit 2x concealed door bolts to the slave, intumescent strip to rebate on the master. when you have sign off, do the same to the oak doors and replace the FD30s.

Not sure I follow this. Can you draw a sketch please?

[Simplysimon]

If OCD kicks in someone can rotate it 90 deg! one of these for door bolt

Edited July 3, 2022 by Simplysimon
adding link

[joth]

14 hours ago, Adsibob said:

Well the house was built a 100 years ago, and the insurance was in place well before the building works. I’m not sure how making a minor modification to a house would invalidate the insurance.

This must all be triggered by having a third story? (Loft conversion)

 

We retrofitted a 1960s, open plan ground floor including hallway and stairwell, and had no specific fire regulations requirements except interlinked fire alarms (which I'm more than happy to have installed).

 

 

[Adsibob]

1 hour ago, joth said:

This must all be triggered by having a third story? (Loft conversion)

Yes.

[saveasteading]

23 hours ago, Adsibob said:

I’m not sure how making a minor modification to a house would invalidate the insurance.

Because

Always assume an insurance company will try to find a reason not to pay up.

If you don't do what the BCO requires then it is minor only in extent of works, not in risk of fire damage.

 

My point really is that you could fit sprinklers, fit alarms, do a special door, and whatever else was suggested, all of them, and all the bco wants is the door.

OR suggest the interlinked alarms ( which are now standard in Scotland) and ask if the door is still needed.

 

I say this with some growling from the distant past when one fire officer insisted on some special measures in a particular situation, then another took over and required something completely different and discounted what his colleague had wanted. ie get the simplest/bes solution agreed by the person who matters, ie the bco. But take it out again at your own risk.

[Adsibob]

I’m comfortable with the risk. The reality is that with all the anti fire measures in the house, the risk of it burning down are very small.

 

The risk of it burning down and the doors on top floor not being compliant contributing to that fire are even smaller.

 

And the risk of that’s happening and there being evidence left to prove the non-compliance are even smaller than that.

 

Ultimately, when taking out home insurance I don’t recall there ever being a question asking about compliance with building regs. They ask what year the property was built and then make their risk assessment based on that. It’s not as if they give a discount after the fire safety of the property is improved.

[saveasteading]

Yes I understand. But if there is a fire they visit and look for the cause of the spread, then don't pay.

If you never have a fire there is no problem.

 

My moneysaving suggestion is to point out the low risks, as you have, and whether the door is necessary/ a help / or  a danger.