Roll up Fire Door in the middle of a Community Center locker room

[FyrBldgGuy]

Recently, I went to a Community Recreation Center to use the swimming/lap pool. The facility was expanded in 2016 to include the pool area. In the middle of the men's and women's locker rooms there are two back to back roll up doors. There is also a family room corridor area that also has the back to back roll up doors. A corridor that separates the pool area from the lobby has the same thing. All of the door areas would line up with the expansion.

So, in the locker room you can be in the shower and the doors would separate you from the lockers if they closed. The corridor that has the lobby to pool area access also includes the child care facility. When the doors close the child care facility is separated from the lobby.

Now I can understand that if a 3 hour separation is required, and fire doors are needed it should be done. However, Roll up fire doors (also known as guillotine doors) are a really bad idea in a trafficed area. I am reviewed these types of doors in warehouses, and other similar industrial complex areas, or perhaps as a closure for a window space.

When these doors close in normally occupied public spaces there is an emotional reaction, a similar reaction does not happen with swinging fire doors.

There are other issues, like no fire/smoke detection near the doors. There are mechanical links on the doors, but given the type of construction, air flows, lack of combustible materials, it is highly unlikely the mechanical links will ever operate. Again if one side operated, the other side probably would not operate.

I have never seen a mess like this before. The facility is built and occupied. The annual maintenance of those doors will be expensive. If they close by general fire alarm it will take some time to the doors back open.

Any thoughts?

 

[cda]

Someone did some selling !

“”””There are other issues, like no fire/smoke detection near the doors. There are mechanical links on the doors, but given the type of construction, air flows, lack of combustible materials, it is highly unlikely the mechanical links will ever operate. Again if one side operated, the other side probably would not operate.”””

Yep, waiting to see if fire and overhead doors are still open, because the link is still in place.

My guess they do not shut off the fire alarm.

 

[north star]

@ ~ @

FyrBldgGuy,

Was this bldg. project reviewed for compliance to
the adopted Codes [ in that jurisdiction ], either
before or during construction, and certainly
before the C. of O. was issued ?

What Codes & edition are applicable ?

Has an inspection of all of the conditions been
performed & documented ?

Is the Fire Code Official in that jurisdiction aware
of the conditions ?

The IFC has provisions in it to require correction
of hazardous or dangerous conditions.

Have you documented the various conditions, and
then cited the various Codes that are presumably
being violated [ i.e. - have you started a case file
of your own ] ?

Thanks !

@ ~ @

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

The project is within a Town of about 25,000. The building department is subcontracted out. The Fire Department has a Fire Marshal. The assumption is that both groups reviewed the plans, and conducted inspections including fire alarm and fire door operation.

Here are my assumptions:

The total building area without a 3 hour separation would probably exceed the allowable area for a 4A Occupancy.
It is likely that smoke detection was not installed in the area due to moisture.
The plan reviewers and inspectors may not understand the dynamics involved.

The 2012 Codes were the adopted codes at the time of design.

I have thought about asking for all documents related to those functions. But if I find out there is a serious problem then what?

 

[RLGA]

I assume you meant Group A-4 occupancy; and the allowable area would be dependent on the type of construction and sprinklered condition of the building, which aren't provided. Group A-4 occupancies are allowed a lot of floor area if they sprinklered.

Assuming they did not have enough floor area for the expansion, then a fire wall would be required. Since you mentioned the wall being 3-hour rated, this would mean that the building is of Type I, III, or IV construction per IBC Table 706.4. At the best case (Type I), the area would be unlimited, so I doubt a fire wall would be needed. At the worst case (Type IV nonsprinklered), the maximum area is 15,000 sq. ft.--60,000 sq. ft. if sprinklered. A fire wall may have been introduced because of a mix of construction types, regardless of allowable area. Is the 3-hour wall constructed of back-to-back walls and each wall has a vertical fire shutter? In a standard fire wall configuration, only one fire shutter is required. Back-to-back fire shutters suggests that this is where the addition was made and the existing wall could not be considered a fire wall by itself due to the structural independence requirement and another wall was added adjacent to the existing; thus, each wall opening had to have its own shutter should the other wall fail during a fire.

Fire shutters are not prohibited and they have a regulated closing speed per NFPA 80. Vertical fire shutters cannot be used as means of egress openings, so other exit access or exit doors are required. I assume what you meant by "mechanical links" are fusible links, which function based on ambient heat and not direct flame; thus, the lack of combustible materials in the area does not mean that the doors will not function properly. If the fire generates enough heat (120 to 500 deg F, depending on the rating of the links), then the fusible links will disengage and the doors close. Fusible links are required on both sides of the opening, so that heat on either side will acuate the door. NFPA 80 requires that fire shutters be tested and inspected annually, so, if you're in a position to do so, I would request that the records of such be provided.

 

[cda]

Well when the doors slide down

Is there still means of exiting all the areas, without the doors being raised??!

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

OK, I got sloppy in my code language (semi-retired). Group A-4 Occupancy, correct. Based upon an existing building with an addition, it is likely the construction is Type III. It is definitely not Type I or IV. It could be Type II construction. Type V construction is unlikely given the total area.

The roll-up fire doors are manufactured by Cornell, (doors not shutters, shutters are used in window openings). Without the actual spec sheets I can only guess at the rating. But there are two back to back, and it is unlikely that there would be a need for two one hour doors. So the guess is two 90 minute doors, (i.e. three hour wall).

Mechanical fusible links are used at each door.

The building does not look the walls were designed to stand up by themselves. There is no parapet, wing wall or other indicators of free standing fire wall. The roof is stepped and there are openings near the upper wall in proximity to the are where the wall would be installed. The distance is about 10 feet from the wall to the raised roof.

The building has a voice annunciation fire alarm system. The only smoke detector that I have noticed is above the fire alarm panel. The whole building has a fire sprinkler system, including over the pool.

There is exit access on both sides of the fire doors. The child care exit door is into a fenced area. The fence gate can be opened from the inside, but a key is needed from the outside.

The exit access from the locker room is out through the lobby or out through the pool area.

At the present time I have not taken my inspection tools or camera into the facility. Its not my jurisdiction and I am not ready to butt heads with the code officials, yet.

 

[RLGA]

You're correct, they're vertical fire doors and not shutters.

A 3-hour fire wall is not required between Type II buildings, so Type III construction sounds to be correct. If the wall was a 2-hour fire wall, then Type II and V construction could factor into the situation, and, thus, 3/4- or 1-hour back-to-back fire doors could be the case. However, back-to-back fire doors does not make sense if the fire wall (or possibly a fire barrier) is a single wall. There must be some other logic at play here.

 

[cda]

Sounds like it meets code ??

Poor design but that is in the eye of the owner