Dorgards

[Paul1979]

This is a question which has been prompted following a F&RS audit on a premises - office accommodation in Central London. Built 1800's with refurbishments over the decades.

Dorgards fitted to cross passage fire/smoke doors along corridors.

Comments made by F&RS were...

"Dorgard Units are no longer felt suitable - reference to EN54 Part 2/4 for fire alarm/life safety product testing and should therefore not be used as part of the fire alarm system".

Lobby doors approaching stairs are in some cases held open with 24v magnets (interfaced with fire alarm system).

Appreciate the Dorgards are not adequate in higher life risk occupancy including sleeping, but are Dorgards a complete 'NO' now, or still sufficient in the right cases??

[bernicarey]

"Dorgard Units are no longer felt suitable - reference to EN54 Part 2/4

Ummmm....I'm a little confused by this, for several reasons.

BS EN 54 -2 Fire detection and fire alarm systems. Control and Indicating Equipment. Current Edition is 1997+A1:2006 last amended in Jan 2007, so nothing 'new' there.

BS EN 54-4 Fire detection and fire alarm systems. Power supply equipment. The current Edition is 21 years old, so nothing has changed there.

Dorguard is manufactured to comply with both
BS EN 1155:1997 Building hardware. Electrically powered hold-open devices for swing doors. Again, a current document that hasn't changed.
and
BS 7273-4:2015 Code of practice for the operation of fire protection measures. Actuation of release mechanisms for doors.... guess what, a current document so again nothing changed (they were previously made to the earlier versions).


I appreciate there will be several models in use, some perhaps going back some years, but that is what a FRA is all about, assessing the risk. So long as they are maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction, which are quite extensive, there's nothing wrong with them.

The Dorguard website here https://doorguard.org/contents/en-uk/d107_dorgard.html seems quite confident in their product.

I think the FRS inspector should explain themselves in more detail.

However, there is a caveat to all of the above.

On page 125 of the pdf (p123 of the actual booklet) the Fire Risk Assessment booklet for offices & shops (and no doubt all the others too) contains the following statement (my use of bold):

Other devices, including self-contained devices which perform a similar function, that are not connected directly to a fire alarm system and are not therefore able to meet the above criteria are available and 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. In all cases where a door hold open device is used it should be possible to close the door manually. A site specific risk assessment should be undertaken before any type of automatic door hold open/release device is installed. If you are unsure about the suitability of such devices in your premises, you should seek the advice of a competent person.

I would say that if properly maintained and tested, there's nothing wrong with them.
I'd want the FRS to explain themselves in far greater detail, because at the moment those comments are unsupported by 'evidence'. That's the sort of thing that happens when someone goes to a conference or seminar, some guest speaker voices an opinion, and before you know it the opinion has become fact.
That statement in the Booklet does not have any supporting information; it reads like an opinion, not fact.
If they are truly unsuitable for "doors protecting single stairways or other critical means of escape" then where's' the non-conformance with a relevant standard?
They're either fit for purpose or not. That's like saying your car brakes are complaint with BS EN requirements, but only if you keep below 30mph!

[stephen1974]

Strange, I thought I had posted a response to this earlier.

Likewise I was a bit confused as 54-2 and 54-4 cover different things to what appeared to be suggested and in fact i could find no section of EN 54 that covered what was being suggested. I wrote that perhaps you should ask for clarification on what exactly they were reffering to and why they were not suitable anymore.

Given that many well respected fire safety companies sell dorguard, I dont think they would if there were genuine concerns about their safe use and whilst most that I speak to prefer magnetic systems wired to the alarm, they will all happily recommend dorguard where it is appropriate. It is a system that has limitations after all, ie that it has to be in a place where the alarm will be loud enough to activate it. People are also inclined to prop dorguarded doors open as well because they think its a doorstop not a fire safety measure, but the sound of music or machinery makes it close when it shouldnt, or the batteries are dead and it wont stay open etc...

[Paul1979]

Thank you for the responses - I will challenge the FRS officer and see what they say...again, thank you for your thoughts.

[Messy]

Is this an enforcement notice or a notice of fire safety deficiency?

It sounds like the Inspecting Officer might be winging it

I am not keen on dorgards on hi risk escape routes - esp single storey sleeping accommodation. Or noisy areas that might cause false activations ( busy works canteen with cutlery etc).

It's always worth challenging the advice and maybe contact Dorgards themself to see if they can point you in the right direction

[Paul1979]

Thank you Messy.