{"id":332,"date":"2022-11-28T14:55:28","date_gmt":"2022-11-28T14:55:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/?page_id=332"},"modified":"2022-12-09T14:04:39","modified_gmt":"2022-12-09T14:04:39","slug":"fire-doors-meeting-1","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\n\t

Fire Doors Meeting 1 BIM4 Housing Roundtables 20210716<\/h2>\n

The first question is shared on screen: What Risks do Fire Doors Mitigate?<\/em><\/p>\n

GARY A fire door is also to be a door, do we need to be talking about that side of things as well? A fire door will mitigate risks around fire but it will also mitigate risks around security, acoustics, thermal performance etc. Do you want that to be in scope or are we specifically looking at the fire properties of a fire door? RICHARD I think purely in terms of fire. GARY Then what I\u2019d add although it\u2019s kind of in here, obviously a fire door operates as part of a controlled system when it comes to the spread of fire, so it doesn\u2019t act in isolation. it mitigates the risk of a system failure, not just an individual point failure.<\/p>\n

PAUL The top two, risk of smoke and spread of fire, absolutely, but when I think of the fire safety order I always think of the first point of minimising risk (including of injury) which comes from the risk of spread of smoke. So, in terms of the question, is this for a technical audience or are we reaching out to people here for which that will be a primary concern. RICHARD The idea is that we\u2019ll come out with a definitive guide for the industry, so it\u2019s the industry rather than individual persons. This isn\u2019t for householders. X No, but I think in alignment, if you\u2019re looking at the fire safety order, for me I would say risk of injury, harm etc.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What we\u2019re trying to do at the moment is feedback to the MHCLG what information\u2019s required. The idea is to put this into data templates so that this information can be procured but in the context of a particular risk. Building upon what Paul was saying, it is the individual tenants requirements as well that we need to take account of because at the end of the day they\u2019re a very major stakeholder in all of this.<\/p>\n

IAN SMITH About the spread of smoke, I\u2019ve had practical experience of fires in a school. Even without the smoke seal operating (because it never got that hot) good fitting fire doors minimised the smoke damage to other areas so school continuity is greatly enhanced because clean up after a fire is significantly reduced. Risk of smoke damage and loss of facility as a consequence is reduced.<\/p>\n

GEORGE We look at fire doors from the POV of they\u2019re protecting against fire, but also the door is there for security and therefore\u2026GARY As George said, a door is there to offer a security gain, potentially a thermal gain, to have acoustic properties. The risk around that is obviously risk of security failure, poor thermal performance or a risk fo sound transmission. PAUL I agree, but that\u2019s what risks does a front door mitigate, the security side is not technical to the fire side in the sense that the security is more the general what is the purpose of a flat entrance door\u2026<\/p>\n

DANNY WHITE When you\u2019re looking at security, approved document Q carries the same weight as approved document B, so regarding security in apartments and flats it\u2019s mandatory to have the security aspect in there.<\/p>\n

GEORGE We\u2019re trying to set down what information are we going to ask from manufacturers, supply chains etc. to inform the Golden Thread. At the moment the prism through which the Golden Thread is being viewed is fire and (to some extent) structure, but there\u2019s other risks that e need to take account of e.g. environmental. What information should we be capturing about sustainability (carbon etc) and these are the things we probably need to build in as attributes that need to be collected against a fire door.<\/p>\n

DANNY When we\u2019re talking about fire doors, there\u2019s a lot of emphasis on the fire element but when we\u2019re talking about doors we have to adhere to the other building regulations, we can\u2019t trade those in isolation, and this is where a lot of fire door manufacturers go wrong because they\u2019re not aware of the other regulations. So specifications shouldn\u2019t be just based around fire, and the thermal element is mandatory, acoustics are mandatory, if it\u2019s a new build security is mandatory. You have to think about what the client\u2019s requirements are as well because even though approved document Q is only for new build, in social housing a lot of the clients want the added benefit of security going on to their fire door. That\u2019s why there are dual certification documents, so it means if a door has been tested for fire it\u2019s the same door that\u2019s been tested for security.<\/p>\n

Also, depending on the location of the door, if it\u2019s an external fire door (an open balcony) the doors need to be fire rated, they need to be CE or UKCA marked. With CE and UKCA marking. It\u2019s mandatory.<\/p>\n

DAS Pretty much every component of a building has to meet all of the building regs which are relevant to it, so you could just in the next question identify, I think we realise none of the regs can be looked at independently. In terms of this roundtable to focus on the fire aspect of a door is the only thing we can do. Obviously, you can put in all the other building regs as well, part M, part K, all applied to a door. So a blanket saying it has to meet all the regs is requirement. It may be diverging a bit form the topic.<\/p>\n

GEORGE About risk, within the Golden Thread Initiative we\u2019ve been working with the health & safety working group and they and the compliance team who are looking at standards have been trying to classify risk\u2026Uniclass and the purpose of that is so we\u2019ve got an organised way, this is coming through from CDM. An Excel document is shared on screen<\/em>. These are the risks that his team have been formulating. What I\u2019m looking to do is to say if we can take the risks we can describe them in this standard way. I\u2019m going to feed this into this group for us to then\u2026it may be fed into Uniclass itself.<\/p>\n

Mwenzi About procedures, having now read the draft document BS8644 there is quite a few changes to legislation now coming in to place when ti comes to the European standards - it\u2019s been got rid of because we\u2019re no longer part of Europe. It\u2019s worth reading the draft because there\u2019s quite a lot of pertinent information when it comes to procedures and standards that re now going to be changing due to Britain leaving the EU.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Mwenzi is part of my team, she\u2019s a colleague of mine from The IceFire Portfolio who does work for Active Plan and others with a specialism in health & safety and fire. She\u2019ll actually be leading the group that puts together the outcomes of this and the other roundtables we\u2019ll be having in the next few weeks.<\/p>\n

Question 2: What information do you need to know about a Fire Door to ensure it performs correctly? This is a consolidation of the 5 or 6 question answers that we had through so pretty much everything people sent through to us are on this page.<\/p>\n

LUKE DRISCOLL 28mins 45secs For me, I\u2019d try and simplify it and say to the landlord I want to know it\u2019s compliant, standard\u2026is correct and the baseline parameters are from a compliant installation to be able to inspect against it in the future. Ultimately I need to know it\u2019s legal, up-to-date and I need to know how to test against that standard in the future when it gets inspected on a quarterly basis.<\/p>\n

DANNY I think it was Luke just made a point that\u2019s incredibly valid, the information that we\u2019ve got in front of us from a compliance POV is overcomplicating things. If you\u2019re looking to do things properly you should be looking at third party certified door sets under a fire door manufacturing scheme. Therefore what that means is what they put in for the fire test and what is written up in their extended filed of application is rally what can be used, so they will be using C marked hinges, the correct letterboxes etc because otherwise they\u2019d lose their certification. In a lot of specifications this is where they get it wrong because they only look at certain elements and not the whole system as a complete thing.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think yes from a compliance perspective, but what we\u2019re trying to do here is do more than just simply referring to a British standard or a particular specification. What we need to be doing\u2026let\u2019s say, for example, somebody is an FM and they need to buy a new fire door to replace that existing one. In practice that will go to somebody in the procurement department and they won\u2019t be able to read and understand a fire strategy, they certainly won\u2019t know enough about which British standards and how to interpret them. You might say that\u2019s an issue that everybody should be competent but in practice it\u2019s the weakest link in the chain that we need to be addressing.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve got a specification from a door manufacturer saying the door closers are compliant because\u00a0 they will perform to this level, but I\u2019m told by asset managers and FM managers that the speed the door closes is set according to the tenant and the circumstances of that particular scenario. That information is an example of something that needs to be captured because otherwise what information do we actually need to capture specifically about an individual door.<\/p>\n

DANNY The word that you mentioned was procurement and that\u2019s where a lot of the issues start from because supposing if you haven\u2019t got a robust specification you will get rubbish being supplied to you. Procurement will look at 2 prices, one is 500 one is 1000, and say we\u2019ll go with the 500 one because they\u2019ve said it meets all the requirements whereas in fact it doesn\u2019t because the specification was wrong in the first place. If you can get a specification which is correct then it means only door manufacturers who can achieve the requirements would be allowed to provide that door set.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Just remember part of what we\u2019re doing is to inform the MHCLG for forthcoming legislation and rules. We can\u2019t say, well, just abide by their rules if we haven\u2019t helped set them.<\/p>\n

STEVE (Willmott Dixon) I think the question is very broad at the moment which kind of explains the level of detail that we\u2019ve all gone into individually because we\u2019ve probably all read the question slightly differently. If the question was what evidence do you need to evidence that a fire door complies is one question, what information you require to procure a door frame or a new fire door set is a different question and I think we\u2019ve\u2026there\u2019s a couple of different questions because one is what evidence do we need to ensure what\u2019s installed complies and the next one is what evidence do we need to demonstrate doors being maintained and continues to comply, and the next one (probably easier) is what information is required to procure a replacement. So it might be that there\u2019s 3 questions here in this one.<\/p>\n

PAUL, I agree, this is specification, Luke is correct, but the question would be what information do you need to know as fire safety manager or compliance manager that this door is compliant. This for me is more in depth and says what do you need in your specification for installation and procurement. Then the procurement is a separate question, I think this one is purely specification.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I set the question and it isn\u2019t just about specification, that\u2019s actually the whole point. But the point really is what information would anybody that needs to do anything to a fire door (either design with it, or buy it or install it or maintain it). So, the purpose of the exercise is for us to ensure that all of those different parties have got the information that they need and then, Paul, what we need to do is to ensure the information that Danny needs is definitely there and can be delivered to him. The fact that somebody else in procurement or FM needs something else is important to be able to do.<\/p>\n

STUART the level of detail that we\u2019re going into here is almost beyond a building safety manager because going up to the Newton pressures on what a door closer is required, for a building safety manager to have that level and depth of knowledge and information about the doors seems to be going a bit too heavy for me. I work in social housing so we have to replace flat entrance front doors and communal area fire doors on a cyclical basis. In terms of procurement we work out the fire strategy for that building and what protection level is required for those escape routes to be maintained. We then take that specification of information to experts who are able to provide a door with the adequate certification on the back of it a bi-sided test with all the correct ironmongery to fit the aperture and will give us that level of protection rather than us having to say I need a door that is BS47622. For a building safety manager to be expected to be at that level, that\u2019s more fire engineer level.<\/p>\n

GEORGE We\u2019re not suggesting that this is only for building safety managers. What\u2019s critical in this process is to ensure that the information that you as a building safety manager need is recorded in this and makes sure it\u2019s recorded in a form of words you can relate to and we go down to the next level of detail where we say how does that from a software POV need to be described so it becomes machine-readable so that you don\u2019t heed to read a specification to understand it. When that\u2019s going through it can then be automatically validated. The reason we\u2019ve got such a wide group of people on the call is we\u2019ve got representatives from various different aspects including e.g. Das as a designer might need to know that.<\/p>\n

RICHARD the consensus of the opinion is the question is very broad and every stakeholder needs different things. That being the case, from your own specific POV is there anything that should be on those answers that isn\u2019t there? For the purpose of this exercise look at what you or people adjacent to you might require and what you think needs to be added in there.<\/p>\n

STEVE I think if we thought long enough we could probably double the size of the list there. What might be a different way of coming at this same question is what information is required, as Stuart just said, as a building manager if Stuart is replacing doors he probably needs about 6 bits of information for him to go out and procure that. For somebody to install it a similar amount of information, for somebody to inspect it what information do they require because I think understanding the process that we go through at the various stages, what comes out of that is the information required.<\/p>\n

We require, the first thing is the fire safety strategy and understand the compartmentation strategy of the wall (30, 60 or 90 minutes). We need to understand whether it\u2019s a smoke or not smoke, the width and dimensions of the door and the wall thicknesses. We need to know the weight of the door to be sure that the wall can take that weight. Ironmongery is interesting and challenging because we would only procure a fire door set, that usually comes with ironmongery and also a field of extended application (EXAP). We need to ensure that any ironmongery on that door is comparable and compatible with the fire door certification. That\u2019s quite a complicated exercise specifically if there are security implications or door entry systems being fitted because if the ironmongery is outside of the EXAP you easily compromise\u2026<\/p>\n

Probably not all of those points are included on this list<\/em> because I\u2019ve probably not understood the question and if I were to list out what I need to install it and then what evidence we would provide to confirm that it\u2019s a compliant door set (regulation 38 information). So I could probably do that differently if it was required.<\/p>\n

DANNY The one thing that I would like to see and if you speak to door manufacturers it\u2019s probably easier to break into the Tower of London to nick the crown jewels, is there proper documentation, because they are loath to give it out. They\u2019re hiding behind \u2018it\u2019s our intellectual property\u2019.<\/p>\n

GEORGE shares as Assa Abloy document on screen<\/em>. Assa Abloy are a major manufacturer and this is their declaration of performance. They\u2019ve got information about harmonised standards, the declared performance which goes through showing it\u2019s passed all of the relevant standards. Then it\u2019s saying at different positions how that particular item performs, then you\u2019ve got a reference what the class is and also the door closer sizes and what their torque is etc. If I were somebody working in an FM department and I\u2019m replacing a door this is the performance capability of that type of door to say that depending on the context it will or won\u2019t satisfy that context.<\/p>\n

I think the person what\u2019s actually doing the procurement of the door needs to know isn\u2019t that depending on what the door width or thickness is because somebody will have made that decision by the time it gets installed. I think we need to know what the value is of that particular individual door and how it\u2019s been set because otherwise when you come along to replace it I believe you won\u2019t have the information that you need. That\u2019s why we\u2019re saying we want to be able to capture the information that\u2026In the Grenfell inquiry\u00a0 it\u2019s clear that the whole thing is coming around to it being the competent person and there\u2019s a lot of people in that supply chain that need explicit information rather than having to interpret based on being knowledgeable in certain areas.<\/p>\n

In terms of the asset information the thing that I\u2019m looking for I want to know what information actually everybody needs. Here\u2019s another example. Everybody thinks that BIM solves all this because it will all be in the BIM model, but in practice, for example, fire rating is described in different ways in 4 different BIM models and that means that it\u2019s not computer readable. And then you\u2019ve also got different ways of describing the attributes which from a software engineering POV it\u2019s a nightmare. This is something that we\u2019re working on with the Bim4housing association to try and resolve all of this.<\/p>\n

This is the BIM data (ifc) for a door and you can look at this and see all of these different attributes and if you look at most BIM models, these are all in the BIM models themselves but they\u2019re all empty because they\u2019re actually needed by different people at different times. Things like BS8644, they\u2019ve introduced another 10 attributes that they\u2019re presumably expecting people to be recording but are over and above these requirements. Now that\u2019s not a problem because if we\u2019ve got all of this information we can then slice it out according to who needs it. For example, what I\u2019ve done here is I\u2019ve identified information that is probably needed by a designer or somebody that\u2019s bothered about compliance, somebody that\u2019s looking at the environmental side of things\u2026.<\/p>\n

GEORGE In response to the question of whether the group should be adding to the list \u2018Standard BIM data for a door\u2019<\/em>: I\u2019ve started to do that already. In MBS there is no term for \u2018fire rating\u2019, in the MBS specification it says fire integrity and fire insulation. George shares on screen Cobie door template document<\/em>. This is the conundrum we\u2019re trying to address within the housing association data group. Here we\u2019ve got COBie data, these are COBie attributes which are basically generic to any type of product \u2013 who is the manufacturer, what\u2019s the warranty etc. We\u2019ve then got the IFC and the environmental data standards. But then you\u2019ve got MBS. A lot of people are using MBS for the specification and they\u2019ve got different ways of describing things.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve also got ETIM which is the wholesaler\u2019s institute so this is what they and manufacturers will be providing. And then you\u2019ve got the declarations of performance. So all of those are relevant plus the new ones coming through as BS8644, Our end goal with this is to actually put it into a master library which then people that are accessing information can get the data that they need. You don\u2019t need to worry about the fact that there\u2019s 2 or 3 hundred attributes against a particular object because you will only see the 6 that you need for your particular purpose and that\u2019s why we\u2019re trying to get a collection of people on this. Does that make sense?<\/p>\n

STEVE You\u2019ve show 4 or 5 different standards each collecting information on a door, some will repeat and some will be unique and what we\u2019re saying is that we\u2019re going to produce another list or a compendium of all the existing lists plus any extra bits that we need.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What I\u2019m asking at the moment, and people have been trying to do this unsuccessfully, from this group is talk to people who are subject matter experts from different perspectives and understand the 5 or 10 bits of information that are really important to them. STEVE Because pretty much most of that information that you\u2019ve shown is all about the product, not about installation. GEORGE No, I\u2019ve got more on that<\/p>\n

DANNY Is it worth breaking it down slightly further so that you have a section for front entrance doors you can click onto, a section for riser doors, and a section say for communal doors. Otherwise you could have information overload there when the requirements for a front entrance door are different to a riser cupboard and try and simplify it in that way.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, absolutely. As far as how that\u2019s organised from a data perspective if you leave that with us because we\u2019ve got people who specialise in that stuff. Giving the example that you said there, what we\u2019ve got is a door. The base set of information you need about every door, you\u2019ve then got use cases or things that that door is expected to do, so if it\u2019s acting as a front door then it will have additional information. If it\u2019s acting as an external door then it will have additional information and what we\u2019re doing, we\u2019ve got different ways of viewing the information that can accommodate that particular use case.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also something in the data engineering thing called actors, so you\u2019ve got different people that want to see different information in different contexts. And that\u2019s why the risk side of things is important because what the HSE is trying to do is look at things from a POV of the asset data - what risk are we actually trying to mitigate, how does that door need to perform simply to address that particular risk. Now, there\u2019s other information that we\u2019re going to be capturing, but that\u2019s one risk. it was my intention that once we finish this session here we\u2019ll distill the information that we\u2019ve got but we\u2019ll also invite you to go through the housing association data information (as experts) to look at fire doors. We\u2019ve identified 20 or so asset types across\u2026<\/p>\n

Moving on to Question 3<\/em>\u2026<\/p>\n

GEORGE Steve of Willmott Dixon gave me access to their yellow book which in my view is excellent because it\u2019s actually got explicit steps to go through that they expect their installers and people that are dong inspections to follow. I imagine that most of the major contractors have gone through the same thing. I don\u2019t know how familiar people are with SFG20 but that is a maintenance standard. This (he shares 16009 Fire Doors 1M documen<\/em>t) is maintenance for a fire door and (audio drops out<\/em>)\u2026competency but you\u2019ve got a list of the relevant legislation and this is issued to somebody that\u2019s carrying out maintenance.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re expected to be competent, this has come largely from health care where they have got evidence the individual tasks that are being carried out. I know there\u2019s a UKAS standard being created for competency of maintenance generally, it would be useful if we could do the same sort of thing for all of the different elements: installation, inspection, so that there\u2019s a common way that you can then evidence that. We\u2019re not going to do that today, but if you can share with us information about that type of thing.<\/p>\n

DANNY When you\u2019re looking at maintenance, there are two angles you need to look at it and you need to be quite specific about it, because some people see upgrading a fire door as maintaining it. Now, under the certification schemes you can only maintain a fire door as you found it and a lot of it is down to what information have you got about that particular door set. If you\u2019re looking at social housing, if they\u2019ve inherited blocks which are 40-50 years old then they probably won\u2019t have anything. There\u2019s also an issue with the word notional fire doors and that\u2019s causing havoc within the industry and I think you need to have a better understanding of how the UKAS maintenance schemes are run in order for you to draw up a decent proposal and a decent checklist. It\u2019s just to make sure that people don\u2019t get confused with maintaining a fire door and trying to upgrade it because they\u2019re two completely different things.<\/p>\n

STEVE And there\u2019s a third one about repairs to existing fire doors and there\u2019s a whole load of documentation about what you can and cannot do, I think it\u2019s by Trada. DANNY Yeah, they\u2019ve got their approve repair techniques, there\u2019s 23 items on there and the idea is you go and inspect a door and every fault, you look down your article, your approve repair technique and it gives you a number and tells you how to repair it. X??? 1hr 6mins 13secs I think a lot of the risk will be taken away from that and I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll be allowed to. My guess is the risk will be too great. if anyone is not competent is touching that door and doing something that makes it not contributing to life safety then we\u2019ll be told you\u2019ve got to replace it if you\u2019ve got to do anything to it. STEVE I think you\u2019re right, some of the way that repairs and maintenance contracts in the past, it\u2019s been about fix and make good and repair, that\u2019s likely to disappear.<\/p>\n

RICHARD re answers to Question 3<\/em> from your own specific point of view Is there anything there that\u2019s missing? DANNY Yes, on the first sentence you talk about BM Trada, realistically you should take out BM Trada and put UKAS accredited scheme.<\/p>\n

GARY Do we need to be setting out what the tasks and method statements actually are? Or do we just need to be saying that we need certification to prove that it has been installed and maintained correctly? We don't have the skill to set out what those method statements are.<\/p>\n

GEORGE yes, we do need to do that. Now, if you don\u2019t have the skill to do it I respect that but we do need to set them out because we need to identify what those are so that we can start to feed towards they type of thing that has come out\u2026SFG20 has been put together by the M&E maintenance community and I believe we need an equivalent set of standardised procedures. Direct Works, which represents 80% of housing associations, they were involved in an initiative last year where they assessed 550 fire people that said they were able to install fire doors and when they were assessed they found that only 6 passed the assessment. We do need to have something that\u2019s explicit because that\u2019s the way the industry is going.<\/p>\n

GARY I guess I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s realistic or the role of this group to define how to properly install a fire door. GEORGE If we don\u2019t know, I respect that. We\u2019ve got 2 sessions coming up where we are hoping to have people that install fire doors. DANNY One of the problems that we\u2019ve got is we hear phrases like 3rd party certification so we go through to a 3rd party certification scheme, but they\u2019re all different. For example, if you had BM Trada you can put one person on the course and he can sign off the works of 20 other people. Everybody\u2019s that\u2019s installed the door has to be trained. So there\u2019s a great disparity under this terminology 3rd party certification. GARY The question is very broad again because you\u2019ve got one is about the product and the other one is about installation.<\/p>\n

STEVE From an installation perspective anyone installing a fire door has to work for an organisation that\u2019s accredited by a UKAS accredited organisation at a company level (IFC, Trada etc) and sometimes that 3rd party assessment of a company may specifically name a supervisor. That\u2019s at the company level and that makes sure that the company has the systems and processes, checklists and training in house. A supervisor has either got to be named in that certification or hold an NVQ level 2. Not just in carpentry, but there's a specific module within the within the NVQ for the installation of fire doors and the supervisor needs to have had that.<\/p>\n

And then the worker is the installer. Currently they don't have to have anything, but they have to be under the supervision of a competent supervisor that's ultimately signing off their work. But as a minimum they have to have had a toolbox talk by the fire door set manufacturer and understood the installation instructions. So that\u2019s the three levels of competence: installing organisation, supervisor and operative. Then we have an installation checklist for our own QD records.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So would it make sense to have that checklist in a standardised form, just like they have in the whole of the M&E industry? It would mean that you've got an effective way of knowing whether something has been done in accordance with best practice.<\/p>\n

STEVE One of the growing issues is that the organisations themselves a a UKAS accredited organisation, they have to have their own processes in place and the accreditation bodies out there accredit there as part of their management system. So whilst I agree with what you're saying, it's a bit like saying why don't we have a standard management system that everyone works to. You could certainly have an indicative one, but it\u2019s very different and different door set manufacturers have different installation instructions to suit their doors. A GRP door is a very different fire door to a steel or a timber and a double door sets very different from a single. There's quite a lot of variation so a lot of it revolves around manufacturers\u2019 installation instructions as well. So I don\u2019t think that\u2019s going to be possible, but it\u2019s a good point.<\/p>\n

KELLY I\u2019m coming at this from a different POV with regards to we\u2019re looking at how we\u2019re going to be inspecting doors. We probably have around 30,000 fire doors. Our concern is around the competency to do that, who are we going to get to do that, how often. And how we record that data because I think the biggest challenge for us is the actual recording specifically to each door. Something else that\u2019s not on your list we\u2019ve been looking at is is there a way to record data in real time on these doors, to actually have sensors and links that send-off information that tells you if doors haven\u2019t closed properly etc.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019re looking at technology as well. Obviously we\u2019ve got different types of doors and what we actually do with those doors: are we going to have a program to replace all of the doors, how are we going to approach it. If we do do that then we have to be looking at that technology, how are we going to maintain them in the future because for an organisation that\u2019s got so many fire doors it\u2019s going to be really difficult to do that.<\/p>\n

The other thing that needs to be incorporated in here, I know it\u2019s holding the data information but it\u2019s also how are we going to inspect doors on customers flats. I know that\u2019s not holding the data of the installation but it\u2019s all around how are doors manufactured for us to have that data in BIM in the Golden Thread so we know what we need to look at and how we\u2019re going to process that if we\u2019re not going to have the access. What is the minimum of information we can have if we really can\u2019t get in and view these\u2026<\/p>\n

RICHARD Let me throw that back at you. What is the minimum information that you need to function properly?<\/p>\n

KELLY I suppose with a customer\u2019s door which is harder to inspect, we need to ensure that that door closes properly, so this is where we\u2019re looking at intelligent data (is there a way to put some data into these doors to find out if they don\u2019t close properly). I know they\u2019re all going to close their doors behind them if they\u2019re in their house but in an emergency do we know if these doors are going to close.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Ian Smith was the technical director at Pinnacle so he\u2019s run 100s of maintenance engineers that have been doing maintenance. Does it make sense, Ian, to have some sort of standardised task list?<\/p>\n

IAN SMITH I've been fortunate in working with companies including Pinnacle who've been quite well ahead in terms of recognising the importance of fire doors. So on PFI schools you've got hundreds of doors in a senior school, the same in housing. It\u2019s interesting the comments that have been made in relation to the door to apartments and the like, these are always a problem. It's surprising how many people don't seem to take their own safety and recognise that they should have somebody check that door to make sure it's correct. Going forward, I don\u2019t want to push us back into the bad old days, coming out of Hackett it was quite evident that whole tranches of the industry had removed fire doors without any thought of the consequences. Going forward, once things settle down there\u2019ll be a much better organised benchmark in terms of managing the fire door inspections and the maintenance and repairs that would arise out of that.<\/p>\n

I do think it\u2019s important that people who work on fire doors have the appropriate knowledge, training and experience (and that again comes out of Hackett. We\u2019ve taken delivery on some new build sites recently and it\u2019s quite evident that whoever put in the fire doors really didn\u2019t understand what they were doing and unfortunately the guy doing the checking didn\u2019t know what he was looking at either, so we end up with a building that\u2019s signed off by building control that has numerous fire door faults all over it. I think the list covers everything that\u2019s needed and as we go forward it will draw into a nice action plan.<\/p>\n

STUART I\u2019m a building safety manager. I think the list is fairly well rounded for my requirements.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019ve got a question: if we were to try and draw together some sort of initiative to produce best practice examples for installation and inspection. Are there people that we should be talking to who might be willing to share their knowledge? The British Wood Working Federation is suggested<\/em>.<\/p>\n

DANNY I\u2019ve done thousands and thousands of post-installation inspections and I could share your photos of the horrors that I find if required. GEORGE yeah, that would definitely be helpful because one of the things we want to do, I seem as though I'm singing the praises of Willmott Dixon all the time, but what I've been also impressed with the Yellow book is that they've got this culture of people reporting back things that go wrong. So it's this black box thinking to identify problems so that they can then be engineered out. Something we\u2019re very keen to start looking at in Bim4housing because if we can start to gather that together as an industry experience then that becomes a very useful resource.<\/p>\n

DANNY I do a lot of post-installation inspections for contractors, what you find is when the installer gets it wrong (be they 3rd party or not) they quickly learn how to put things right and what to look at. The main contractor will turn round and say Danny\u2019s coming on sire and they panic, but the make sure that everything is correct, they\u2019ve got a copy of the installation instructions and the correct materials they\u2019ve using and it\u2019s just trying to educate people this is what you need to be doing and it\u2019s not being to say look at you, your completely useless, it\u2019s being done for life safety. Eventually when they get the message through to that then they\u2019re a lot more receptive. What there should be is an independent tier going in and signing things off because when you look at certification schemes it\u2019s very easy to pass because you\u2019re audited twice a year and you know in advance. If there was an organisation that could just drop in and do random inspections that would greatly help the industry.<\/p>\n

The installations in new builds are absolutely shocking. I was speaking to a former director of Barclay Homes, he said the average base build defects for high-rise in London is between one and a half and two and a half million.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Question 4, competency. GEORGE The important thing here is to look at both the training and also we need standard procedures. If we have some standardised procedures you\u2019ve then got something you can audit against. The Fire Industry Association have told me that they\u2019ve got a range of different elements. I\u2019ve dropped down there the people that I\u2019ve been told about but it would be good\u2026I think I\u2019ve explained that there\u2019s a new UKAS standard that\u2019s being evolved at the moment for competency. If you could feed to us any other initiatives that we can feed through that would be excellent. RICHARD something I\u2019ve gleaned over the last half hour is that there are a lot of nationally recognised approved routes of competency. Unfortunately some are better than others, so you need something that is nationally recognised as the one, don\u2019t you?<\/p>\n

DANNY Wouldn\u2019t that come under the NVQ level 2? X? 1hr 29mins 10secs I believe that there\u2019s a competency working group that Build UK are leading on behalf of the construction leadership council as part of the Dame Judith Hackett\u2026the competency thing is a bit shocking at the moment and that certainly needs to be resolved. I don\u2019t know anyone directly involved with that working group. X? 1hr 29mins 40secs Andy Frankham was on the working group and i know he\u2019s just moved and gone on to the competency working group so i\u2019ll try and get an update directly from him.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Something that came up in another workstream is you can get certified to fit a cavity barrier and you go on to site and show your documentation. Unfortunately you\u2019ve been certified to fit a cavity barrier in a certain situation and the cavity barriers that need fitting are in a totally different situation. So the person who\u2019s certified to fit that charity barrier doesn't actually know what they're doing. But they\u2019re certified.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I was talking with Amira who are a fire door manufacturer and they said the problem with the certification is that they can actually go and do an assessment very quickly and actually there\u2019s no real rigour behind how that\u2019s being managed, that\u2019s a concern. Clearly we want a culture where we\u2019ve got people that are properly trained and accredited, but is that enough. if you\u2019re a building safety manager or an accountable person or responsible person is it adequate for you just to say that we appointed somebody that had the right accreditations.<\/p>\n

LUKE it has to be because otherwise that job becomes untenable very quickly. We have to go the UKAS standard is X, the mark is BM Trada or whoever, it gets to a point where we have to rely on that the controls in the business are in place. The funding and how to get there, dark art, don\u2019t understand it, but we\u2019re rapidly moving to a place where a building safety manager is going to have a licence to operate to do that. It doesn\u2019t take a massive leap of faith to the point where we\u2019ll end up with carpenters in the same way as you\u2019ve got gas safe engineers. I should think you\u2019ll have a ticket where you go I can do fire doors but I can\u2019t touch anything else, or a particular type of carpentry but I can\u2019t do anything else.<\/p>\n

All those different permutations that sit underneath the gas safe ticket, you\u2019re gonna add to that fundamentally if you\u2019re employing someone you\u2019ve got an obligation to get them how safely everyday so you\u2019ve got to train them and put them in the right position and if you\u2019re responsible for someone in a building we\u2019ve got to do the same. if I try and control the accreditation my mind will explode - it\u2019s exploding already with net zero carbon, supply chain issues, the age of the ageing workforce, so that\u2019s out of my control. What I can control is what i want, competent people, competency, it\u2019s kind of over there. I won\u2019t employ you unless you\u2019ve got a competency. yes, you\u2019re going to need competency if you\u2019re looking at anything with fire. The door inspections is probably one that worries me, how we get the consistent view of consistent door inspections and that doesn\u2019t overrule UKAS accredited installation.<\/p>\n

Absolutely right, Luke. I agree that there\u2019s a bar and it\u2019s about setting that bar and trusting that UKAS accredited, from a manufacturers perspective no one ever checks the competencies of the bench joiners in the door set manufacturing facility. What you're looking for is that it\u2019s a fire door that\u2019s tested by a UKAS accredited test house and they have certification for that fire door. It\u2019s the same with competency, we need the installers to\u2026we need to set the bar and that\u2019s the bar you need to jump over.<\/p>\n

LUKE Completely, and we need to find the right balance between setting that bar, the lens that we\u2019re looking at this through is all, we can all cast aspersions on BRE testing and the scale it has gone on, but actually we need to say they\u2019re sitting there, they\u2019re money on the line, that\u2019s the standard set and if everyone reaches that standard it becomes really good for us. I\u2019ve done it where we had 30 chippies on board and we had a small team doing fire doors, got them BM Trada and it was brilliant, some of them said it was some of the best training they\u2019d done. It also allowed us to support fire risk actions in a different way, training, different career paths for trades as well, other incentives about how you can pay differently, it unlocks an awful lot. But you\u2019ve got to trust that that standard is the right one.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Absolutely, Luke, I wasn\u2019t suggesting you drill down into the detail just as I\u2019m not suggesting that a client that\u2019s employing an M&E maintenance person would go down into that level of detail. What they do in their processes, they need to record what tasks have actually been carried out because if there is an issue they need to be able to evidence that the person was instructed correctly to do the work. That\u2019s current and absolutely required in the M&E market.<\/p>\n

LUKE That\u2019s where it comes down to: a gas safe ticket, or it\u2019s a CSCS card or the new equivalent of that goes I\u2019ve got a licence to operate in this sector, there\u2019s my competency, it\u2019s updated annually and it\u2019s down to the employer to evidence how they\u2019ve selected that person (unfortunately) and how they\u2019ve instructed that person to carry out their duties.<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s absolutely right, but what I\u2019m saying is that in the M&E maintenance market if you\u2019re maintaining an air conditioning unit it\u2019s not adequate to anymore, it used to be the case that you\u2019d have a competent person that carried out a 6 monthly maintenance. Now, it\u2019s coming through that there\u2019s 12 tasks that they have to carry out and there\u2019s a checklist. It\u2019s not for you, Luke, to define what those tasks are, that\u2019s where experts like Danny will carry that out.<\/p>\n

DANNY I think the greatest thing that we could achieve is to get regulation within the fire door industry because at the moment there is absolutely zero. GEORGE I agree with you but that\u2019s outside of the scope of what we\u2019re trying to achieve. Our task is really to try and define what information is needed under which circumstances to support the safe at the golden thread really. In terms of the accreditation, I agree with you.<\/p>\n

DAS I think the response I gave was more from a designer's point of view. I think obviously a lot of this has to do with either installation or maintenance. What I've come across from more recently on a couple of projects is that depending on the material of the door before mentioned about the different requirements of security, fire, access control, aesthetics and it seems like not all of them can be achieved with every different type of door material for example. And that might be just due to the subcontractor that the contractor has chosen or is going with but certain timber doors can't have a PAS rating if they've got us access control or the other way round with the steel door and aluminium. So I think from a competency POV I\u2019m realising that as designers we probably need to continue that CPD element of it from different suppliers to understand what the barriers to achieving ever so more increasingly complicated things that the doors have to do - from fire to access control to security and the aesthetic element.<\/p>\n

Before we get to installing or maintaining, it seems like there's quite a lot of things that either can or can't be achieved just because the doors haven't been tested for those scenarios from suppliers that we're coming across on recent projects and that may just be a consequence of the supplier as opposed to the industry. But that was quite interesting, we\u2019d design and then only come across this problem when they actually come to procure and install the project. Then you had to go around the whole exercise changing everything again.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Do the answers in this question cover what you individually need? DAS I think it\u2019s drawing on what I was saying. I don\u2019t know if there\u2019s a simple matrix which says with this type of door you can\u2019t achieve this security rating, for example. That would help me from a competency POV.<\/p>\n

STEVE The point that Andrew\u2019s making in relation to ironmongery fitted to doors often happens after it comes out after procurement. So you set yourselves on a doorstep manufacturer, they've got all the accreditations they need and the fire door tests and then you find out when you get really into the detail that their door certification is invalid because the ironmonger you propose to fit is not compatible with it. And that is something that really does need to be picked up in the specification. We\u2019ve had instances where a customer working in some hospitals, they've got their own access control system. And that's it, that\u2019s their access control company. Sometimes we hand the door over and then their access control company comes in and destroys the door to fit.<\/p>\n

So that's an issue and part of that goes back to earlier on about how difficult it is to get primary test evidence and copies of the extended field of application, because all the door set manufacturers, they won't say here's a door and it achieves 75 minutes, they\u2019ll say it only needs to meet 50. So they'll they'll look at what can we say to compete in the market because we only need to achieve 60 minutes and if achieves 75 it's over engineered. So they all want to get hold of each other's test data to find out how they've done it. I don't know where that is gonna be resolved. This this question here, I\u2019ve seen this question here about competency of the operatives, of the installers rather than the competency of the product because as far as we're concerned the product is certified.<\/p>\n

RICHARD You are right, this is about personnel.<\/p>\n

STEVE Until somebody legislates like they have done with Gas Safe that says you can't work on a fire door unless you've got this qualification, we're pushing the market, you know, we're trying to lead and we're putting competency requirements out there and what we get back from a lot of our supply chain is no one else is asking for this and I've got to spend 3 grand a year.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Yeah. But you must remember, Steve, the point of this operation is that this feeds through to the MHCLG. Our procedures have been approved by them, this is semi-official I guess. Were\u2019 feeding through semi-directly, what we\u2019re doing here is to help frame legislation guidelines moving forward. So it's not about the status quo, it's about what we want in the future. So if you've got anything personally that needs to be added into this list, you know what to do.<\/p>\n

PAUL I think Steve makes a really relevant point there about the ironmongery. I had an example last year where FIRAS\/Warrington Fire stood down a product which was in common usage, a closer type on a door. They wouldn't give any leeway about this so as far as they were concerned every product that had that closure which they\u2019d now removed from their approved list, the certification was no longer\u2026integrity, so I think there\u2019s a real problem in that sense that not only every action that goes on that door but there\u2019s a need to keep an understanding of what products are approved and when they do go to remove these products from an approved list there needs to be some sort of leeway or time frame about what the reaction is in the industry where certification has been approved previously for this product is there a time frame for change.<\/p>\n

I made a brief note which someone's added in for me about this industry competence committee. And I just wonder where that's going because everything I've seen in the fire safety acts and the building safety bill keeps saying we're coming towards this, this is going to be specified within the legislation at a later date. Particularly competence around the fire risk assessments has come out as we know, being enhanced in October. And I think the working group is looking at the building safety bill and what competence will be there, particularly as one of the requirements In the accountable person is to approve the competency of any named individuals. So whether it comes with fire safety and building safety then encompasses a lot of fire safety and the Fire Safety Act. I think it's important to get this view of what's being done in the background as well and bring that into this, so I'll go away and do that and add this in.<\/p>\n

GEORGE One thing we\u2019ve encountered, if I\u2019m having an accredited person if a door needs replacing it needs to go to an approved door supplier. So what happens if the door's not closing? So the maintenance guy comes along to try and make sure that the door is secure because obviously it's not closing because it's dropped or whatever. I'm led to believe they need very clear instructions to ensure that when they're carrying out that the door closes, that they don't take stuff off the bottom of the door that then damages the intermittent strip. The other example that I was given was if flooring is replaced or somebody puts a carpet in there in their own home and therefore the door won't open properly. So again, they could well go and take something off the bottom of the door. Therefore there needs to be some mechanism there whereby those cheques are carried.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Number 5, how changes from one product to another are recorded, change management.<\/p>\n

GEORGE This has been covered reasonably well by the comments that people have had. One of the things that\u2019s missing from this, what I\u2019ve discovered (the specification) when I look at the NBS specification, for example, that Das\u2019s team would produce the nature of the specifications are typically that they\u2019re not explicit. That's understandable because of the way procurement is being done, but the difficulty with that unless we end up with something that is actually an explicit specification at handover as to how that particular product is expected to perform. Not that you need to go and read a British standard, this, that and the other to be able to interpret that. In this particular context for that particular product, doing that job in that area, then this is how that is supposed to perform. I think that's one point. And the 2nd is we need to actually record what the product was that was actually installed. And in many cases I'm finding that people are not recording the details. In many cases, door closers aren't recorded, so therefore how can you have a change management process? Either during the design and construction period or after that unless you\u2019ve got that evidence.<\/p>\n

GARY I agree with everything that was on the screen and with what George is saying. The key thing with changes of products is understanding what was there and understanding what is being replaced and recording that accurately throughout. Also, linking through to competence, who is changing that, their competence around whatever it is in the same way that you install\u2026and that accreditation piece that goes with competence. Also, where appropriate, evidence that the design has been referenced so that whoever has made that decision to change it is warranting that is actually within the overall design. So not being looked at from a component perspective, but being looked at that component\u2019s role in the system.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d add to the list the bit about competence around recording who has actually replaced rather than the what, the Who, but then also the what. Particularly if that\u2019s not like for like, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s referenced on there.<\/p>\n

DANNY In response to a couple of the questions which have been there already. The first one was to Andrew, I don't know whether you know how the fire door industry works, but basically you've probably got about 10 door blank manufacturers supplying to every door manufacturer into the marketplace. So even though you've got maybe 1000 door manufacturers, they're probably only using one of ten products and what you can do is go back to the sole source because they've done their independent testing, though they don't sell anything, they only sell door blanks. So there's an avenue there to say have you tested this access system with this particular door blank? And if they have, you can then go to a supplier and say if you're using this type of door blank, go and get it tested. In relation to one of Paul's questions and the removal of the door closer, this is critical because I think I'm I may know the door closer you're talking about and it was a commercial decision. The reason being that the door closer manufacturer didn't want to pay the increase in the fees to still be part of the certification scheme. So there was nothing actually wrong with that door closer, it was more of a financial thing. So what they should have done is gone to another supplier, another certification scheme and say could you add that in.<\/p>\n

What I would like to add to the list is to make it mandatory, or make it part of the process, that the door manufacturer has to provide all the ironmongery items that are on that door set. So, if something breaks you've got a record of what's replacing with.<\/p>\n

GEORGE It might help with that example that Paul\u2019s just given, I was talking with a major insurance broker yesterday and they used the term a serious loss clause\u2019 (which I\u2019d not heard before). It\u2019s apparently a relatively new thing that\u2019s coming into the industry and it relates to an item that causes a loss. If that product is actually used and it\u2019s identified as being the cause of the failure they will only pay out once. So if you\u2019ve got, for example, a product like Daniel\u2019s just been saying with a door closer, if that door closer fails and you carry on installing those door closers then you\u2019re not covered and I thought that was quite significant. It\u2019s change management related<\/em>, you would need to have a record, clearly you need to have a record of what\u2019s been installed, that\u2019s the whole point about the mandatory occurrence reporting. It\u2019s interesting that that\u2019s a new requirement that the insurers are now bringing in.<\/p>\n

PAUL Re that change of product, but changing that product would not would not only negate the integrity of the certification, but should an event happen, you wouldn't be insured as well. The impact across that is huge potentially, so it's a really significant point.<\/p>\n

RICHARD With a lot of these impacts it\u2019s a question of communicating them. It\u2019s becoming more onerous almost daily, but it\u2019s communicating that to the relevant stakeholders so they actually understand the implications because I think, right now, they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

LUKE DRISCOLL 1hr 59mins 05secs I think they need to be very, very understanding about the unintended consequences of making those decisions, the insurance market stepping in, in that way. The only reason we got code for sustainable homes all those years ago was because the insurers went with the climate change is gonna happen, we won't insure you unless you build this in this place.<\/p>\n

RICHARD We had a case with a contact of George's just a few weeks ago And the guy who was head of sustainability said nobody ever spoke to me, I was just there as a placement. We've got a sustainability director. And then suddenly he's getting calls from the FD almost daily Because they\u2019re a developer, they rely on borrowing money and the banks now have a very strict policy. And suddenly this guy had to support all this sustainability information, suddenly he was on the phone everyday, this sustainability guy. It's changing.<\/p>\n

LUKE DRISCOLL 2hrs 15mins 15secs I can foresee a position where we won't be able to do stock acquisitions or swaps or disposals unless they're at a certain EPC level and the the levels of stuff I\u2019m being asked to go back on securitisation is was that solar PV installer 10 years ago accredited to the right standards? Please can you give me the address.<\/p>\n

RICHARD The impact is going to be huge because anything existing IS automatically a huge liability because the information is not there, generally speaking<\/p>\n

LUKE DRISCOLL But we need, we need to go back to a strong message to these groups to be able to say we get that the competence has got to change, we get that the the providence of information and competence of people has got to change massively. But if you carry on down this route, the unintended consequences are that people will not be safer in their homes because no one will do it because\u2026<\/p>\n

STEVE COOK 2hr 1min 15secs We have got an issue, and I've spoken to a couple of insurers and you say, oh, we've got a requirement to only employ competent people and they'll look at you as if you're from another planet. You mean you've been employing incompetent people? You're like, well, no, but we haven't been able to prove it. And so it is that change that's happening that the only way to prove your competence\u2026it's that retrospective activity you know looking at PV installed 10 years or so did it did it meet this, it wouldn't have done. 10 years ago we thought we were the bees knees and we were buying door blanks and frames and getting plumbers to go around filling after their own holes as an industry.<\/p>\n

LUKE DRISCOLL 2hrs 2mins 1 sec These things really need to be, it\u2019s push down pop up OK you get what you want all this but you're gonna rewrite a different EWS1 situation all over the sector. And let's not forget EWS1 was a mortgage provision and a lender's approach to advice note 14. It wasn't the output of advice Note 14, it was the lending interpretation. If they interpret other things in a different way and say that blocks risky it's really difficult.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Well, this is part of what we're trying to do here is make sure that what happens in our small way input into those new regulations that they're fit for purpose and they come out of the industry rather than become imposed by a number of bods who are professional at imposing things because they write these regulations on various and sundry different things and they're great and very professional at writing regulations. Unfortunately, very often (and not just in this industry) they don't know a lot about the industry, and I think that might possibly be the case here and hopefully what we're doing will help a little.<\/p>\n

STEVE Probably need to review that question before anything goes back to MHCLG again on some of the stuff that we're coming up with the proposing because by implications of us requiring competent people to do this type of work they\u2019ll ask the question, well, why are you only asking for that now? So we just need to balance things.<\/p>\n

RICHARD I think that's a very good point. Believe me, before this output goes anywhere it goes through hoops.<\/p>\n

STEVE Because If the competency working group that's working under the under the sphere of the greater good come up with a different conclusion to us then we need to possibly bow to them, but we\u2019ll see.<\/p>\n

GEORGE No, we we are working collaboratively across the Golden Thread initiative. We've got 11 working groups and they in turn are also interfacing with the other MHCLG initiatives. So we're not doing this as a silo, Steve. What we\u2019ll now do is try and interpret this into an output and and and you know share it with you. We'll also look at the the data templates side of things and if you're willing to spend maybe half an hour or so, maybe less, just looking at the data templates that are being compiled and seeing whether they include everything that you would want, then that would be a useful thing as well.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fire Doors Meeting 1 BIM4 Housing Roundtables 20210716 The first question is shared on screen: What Risks do Fire Doors Mitigate? GARY A fire door is also to be a door, do we need to be talking about that side of things as well? A fire door will mitigate risks around fire but it will…<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span>+<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-332","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nFire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1 - BIM4Housing Fire Safety<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1 - BIM4Housing Fire Safety\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Fire Doors Meeting 1 BIM4 Housing Roundtables 20210716 The first question is shared on screen: What Risks do Fire Doors Mitigate? GARY A fire door is also to be a door, do we need to be talking about that side of things as well? A fire door will mitigate risks around fire but it will…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Fire Safety\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-09T14:04:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/fire-doors-meeting-1\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/fire-doors-meeting-1\\\/\",\"name\":\"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1 - BIM4Housing Fire Safety\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-11-28T14:55:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-09T14:04:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/fire-doors-meeting-1\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/fire-doors-meeting-1\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/fire-doors-meeting-1\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing Fire Safety\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1 - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1 - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","og_description":"Fire Doors Meeting 1 BIM4 Housing Roundtables 20210716 The first question is shared on screen: What Risks do Fire Doors Mitigate? GARY A fire door is also to be a door, do we need to be talking about that side of things as well? A fire door will mitigate risks around fire but it will…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Fire Safety","article_modified_time":"2022-12-09T14:04:39+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/","name":"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1 - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-11-28T14:55:28+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-09T14:04:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/fire-doors-meeting-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fire Doors \u2013 Meeting 1"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/","name":"BIM4Housing Fire Safety","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=332"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/332\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":414,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/332\/revisions\/414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}