As I mentioned in Tuesday’s post, one of the most important requirements for fire doors is that they must be closed when a fire occurs. NFPA 80 and the model codes that are widely used in the US allow fire doors to be held open with automatic-closing devices, which normally hold the door open but release and allow the door to close automatically if there is a fire. These devices are normally hard-wired to receive a signal from the fire alarm system, or battery-operated with an integral smoke detector.
NFPA 80 defines the term “automatic-closing device” as: A device that causes the door or window to close when activated by a fusible link or detector. Although this definition would allow a fusible link which is heat-activated, the International Building Code requires automatic-closing fire doors in most locations to be closed by the actuation of smoke detectors or by loss of power – fusible links would not be acceptable in these locations (more on that here).
There is a hold-open product used in the UK market, that is designed to hold open a fire door until the fire alarm is activated; the SOUND of the fire alarm releases the holder and allows the door to close. I have not commonly seen this technology used in the US (have you?), but maybe it’s a viable option? I didn’t see a specific prohibition in the IBC or NFPA 80, so I asked NFPA staff for their opinion. They agreed that this type of device is neither specifically permitted or prohibited by NFPA 80, and could potentially be approved by the AHJ as an equivalency. Of course, the device would need the proper listings (NFPA 252/UL 10C) for installation as a component of a fire door assembly in the US.
The video below demonstrates how this type of holder works. I’d love your thoughts on this technology.
WWYD?
Note that the fire door requirements in the UK are different from the US requirements, which is why the door shown in the video does not have latching hardware.
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
I wonder what powers it??? As in if battery, how do you know it has not died?
The building would need a fire alarm systems with Audio through out.
Than you get into if the fire alarm only had manual pull stations, that is the only time the fire alarm would activate.
Same if the fire alarm was only monitoring the fire sprinkler system, the alarm would only activate on water flow.
Versus required smoke detection placement for door release, per NFPA 72
For IBC, it would take either a code change, or demonstrate that this system is equal to smoke detectors, which seems like a stretch.
Five year warranty?
Wouldn’t this run afoul of ADA requirements for smooth surface at the bottom of the door?
As shown, yes. It would be better if it were redesigned as an automatic flush-bolt.
However, does the flush bottom rail rule apply to the pull side as well? Since the accessibility justification doesn’t apply? If not, then designing such a device to go there would be even simpler, mainly just flip the bolt around.
That was going to be my comment, too. If it could be used on the pull side, it might be viable.
First thing I thought of as well.
I’ll note in response to Lee’s comment that there are also units that mount to the opposite side of the door, such as this one:
https://youtu.be/U0rjcsLjL4Q?t=36
And in response to Charles, the one shown in the video requires the battery power to be adequate in order to be held open. So if the battery dies, the hold-open becomes inoperative.
I’ll also repeat my facebook comment here:
Working on media shoots & events, I’ve noticed that when a crew is unloading a truck into an indoor space through fire-doors, the fire doors invariably get blocked open by something. So I’ve considered getting 4 of these from Europe and fabricating clamp/magnet/suction-cup/carpet-pin portable/temporary attachments for them.
Then at least the open doors won’t get abandoned open in the event of an alarm.
The correct thing to do is of course not block open doors, but I’ve yet to find a crew that is tolerant of that, as it slows down their work so much.
I’ve started asking building managers, and a few of the buildings I work in most frequently have newer voice-announcement alarms that would not trigger most of these hold-opens to close. There are some closers that can match to a specific recording of the alert, but I’ve been trying to imagine as part of the advance planning how to explain why I need recordings of their fire-alarm evacuation announcements, and whether they are even accessible to my contacts . . .
So they don’t require latching on fire doors in the UK?
the strike plate on the floor is a tripping hazard. i think in the USA lets stick with hard wire fire alarm tie in.
Another idea that, to me, is pure folly. Why would someone create a product to release a fire door, in the event of fire and smoke, and make it functionally dependent on “sound” and battery life? Utterly ridiculous!
I did find the short video to be entertaining though. The female actor pushes the door open twice in the video and both times she pushes on the glass instead of pushing on the push plate. And I know it’s the UK, but geez Louise, no latching hardware? The frame in this example is wood, and there are some wood fire-rated frames out there, but how far do we stray from the typical? The Dorguard unit is quite sizable and, to me, aesthetically unappealing. If the floor plate is needed, well, there’s a nice tripping hazard until someone pushes the door open far enough and then manually engages the unit’s plunger to the floor plate. The unit has beveled vertical edges, so perhaps in the UK, this meets with their approval and is allowed at the bottom rail of the door. A wood fire door would definitely need internal blocking for this bulky thing because after a few hits by grandma in her wheelchair and it’s good-bye Dorguard! The video shows small combination type screws for application. It certainly won’t hold up if the wood door is not internally blocked. Notice that the door pull is mounted pretty high up on the door compared to our recommended centerline location for the grip AFF. I don’t see any gasketing, so does the door have to have intumescent material within? Are there any “ironmongers” out there who can elaborate us further on this? And my apologies… I don’t mean to bash these inventors, or stifle their creativity, but some of these items are best left in someone’s head and not on a fire door.
I agree with both of the above – both ADA and power supervision are a problem. The electromechanical and electromagnetic products that we are currently using are inherently fail safe – such that if the building is a power failure mode (albeit the batteries on the fire alarm system would have to run down as well), they release the door providing essential compartmentation.
Totally agree with Lee.
Also, it looks like it has a built in stop. Care would need to be taken as not to create a trip hazard.
Lori,
As an AHJ I can see the “Value” in this as it would be less expensive to install than a magnet but….. I can’t tell you how many times I have conducted a Fire Drill only to see numerous life safety devices not working. A/V’s not working properly, Fire Doors not closing, doors closing half way because they have loose hinges. The list goes on and on!! I would not approve this device because of that list of problems.
CBC 1010.1.1.1 & 11B-404.2.3 no projection into required clear opening width of doorway lower than 34 inches A.F.F.
CBC 11B-404.2.10 door surfaces within 10 inches of the finish floor shall have a smooth surface on the push side.
Assuming this device is used when the door is not opened against a wall to install the magnetic door holder, so when the door is in the closed position, the protruding post mounted on the plate sits in the middle of the circulation path which could pose a tripping hazard for walking surfaces (CBC 11B-403 compliant?).
How does it distinguish one sound from another? Decibels or frequency? I guess I don’t understand enough about sound technology. Also agree with ADA comment.
There are similar devices that shut of a home gas stove, working off the sound of a smoke alarm.
So the technology has been in use.
https://fireavert.com/
Clever, with obvious benefit of cost compared to our standard hold open system at cross corridor doors. I’d be happier if it was magnetic with a flat floor plate and perhaps a low battery signal (could send an email if programmed for example).
The one thing I would LOVE for Codes to implement yesterday are those cute little signs identifying every fire door with a jail warning if propped open.
I saw some of these devices on doors in hotels and schools two years ago. I don’t remember where, but it was here in the USA.
Lori, how will this affect the flush 10″ bottom rail requirement ?
Hi Bob –
This particular product would create a conflict with that requirement, but I’m more interested in your thoughts about the sound technology.
– Lori
I know nothing about fire and building codes outside of the US, but this seems quite problematic. The base creates a tripping hazard on the floor, the device relies on sound from a fire alarm, it is a life safety device that works on battery, it obstructions the bottom 10″ of the door. Wouldn’t it be easier to use a maghold or build something into the closer?
There is a home version of this called the Life Door, available in the U.S.
I’m not well versed in fire alarm sounds. Are they all required to be of the same frequency/sound? If not then how will this device be able to tell what is a fire alarm and what isn’t? There isn’t anything real obvious about this on the website or installation instructions.
No, fire alarms can produce many different types of sounds.
So how would this unit work with the fire alarm systems that use the voice evacuation alert versus the tone alert?
leaving aside the bottom ADA clearance issue, as I understand and read it, it could be argued to be compliant. (if there was a flush version)
– it’s battery powered and fail safe/closed. if the battery dies it closes.
– nfpa specifies “detector” is something that detects a specific tone not a “detector”? wireless interconnected devices are allowed to communicate by listening for specific communications.
In most of the newer buildings I have been in where the fire alarm was being tested, the loudness of the alarms just isn’t there… I don’t see how a soft alarm would trip a door holder. Also, are there different fire alarm signals? Most people did not recognize the alarm as being a fire alarm.
The majority of the visually obvious issues with this device have been fairly skewered and roasted by many in the above posts. The fact that a device like this could be brought to market in the UK illustrate well not only the distinct differences in codes and standards but also the risk of liability and torts in both nations.
However, to answer Lori’s more direct question related to sound technology… in this day and age, I think we all have to be much more mindful of both the security of the systems we design and install as well as their performance, reliability, and total life cycle cost. Taking a nod from the explosion of “smart devices, IOT, etc. if I was going to start design on a device similar to this one there are several other “sound technologies” such as WiFi, zigbee, or Z-wave that would be, from an engineering perspective, far superior options than simply hoping something as critical as a fire door closing device could actually “hear” the nearest audible device.
Ready, fire, aim…
Hi,
I just stumbled across this thread via Google. I work for the manufacturer of these devices. We’ve manufactured and sold over 1 million units world wide.
To address some of the questions here – its a battery-operated device that fails safe on power loss. It emits a specific tone when batteries are running low. Under UK guidance, it is compliant under BS 7273-4 and suitable for a majority of situations.
We also make a version that is operated via a radio transmitter integrated with the fire alarm panel and this is suitable for all installations.
Its been a very successful alternative to wooden door wedges and is widely regarded as perfectly safe to use providing the relevant risk assessments have been completed by the customer.
I would be happy to answer any other questions anyone has about the product.
Thanks Pete – I appreciate you sharing this information. I have not seen these used in the US yet…I’m not sure if there are changes that need to be made in the US codes or not.
– Lori