# Fire Door Clearances



## LGreene (Feb 14, 2011)

Because of the requirement for the annual inspection of fire doors, these assemblies are being looked at more closely than ever.  One of the most common deficiencies is clearance between the door and frame or between the meeting stiles of pairs that is greater than what is allowed by NFPA 80 (1/8" max. for wood doors, 3/16" max for hollow metal doors).  It's important for clearances to be within allowable limits to hinder the spread of smoke and flames, but the cost to replace an entire fire door assembly because the clearance is 1/4" or 5/16" is a tough sell.

A weatherstripping company has asked for my help in finding out whether their proposed solution might be acceptable to code officials.  The product is flat (1/16" thick) piece of intumescent that's attached to the frame with adhesive, and expands to seal the gaps when heated.  The adhesive is warranteed so it's not a question of whether it will stay put, and it can be combined with smokeseal to control the smoke while the intumescent is heating and expanding.

So, for all the fire marshals / fire inspectors out there, imagine you have a building in your jurisdiction that has 50 rated doors with gaps of 1/4" to 5/16"....

a) Would you consider accepting this solution as an alternative to replacing all of the fire door assemblies, even though NFPA 80 doesn't specifically allow the use of intumescent for non-compliant gaps?

b) What type of testing would you want to see to ensure that the product is acceptable to you?

c) Would you prefer to have smokeseal in addition to the intumescent?

d) What's the largest gap you'd allow this product to seal?

I'm happy to try to answer any questions about the product, and I appreciate your time!

- Lori


----------



## permitguy (Feb 15, 2011)

a) Not without testing and approval.

b) I'd want to see it labaratory tested by an impartial 3rd party, and certified to maintain the rating of the assembly when gaps are more than the original door listing allowed for.

c & d)  The results of the testing should be inclusive enough to answer all questions about the product without me having to make a field judgement about it, including the potential need for smoke seals and the allowable gap the product could fill.

I would also be concerned about any product intended to expand and seal gaps where doors are concerned.  Will the product make the doors more difficult to open?  Will they re-close after a suppression crew does a "peek-a-boo"?  This should all be addressed in the testing.  In a nutshell, I'd be skeptical to the point of ordering it removed unless I had acceptable documentation to justify allowing it.


----------



## gvictor (Feb 15, 2011)

Agree with permit guy.  All his point are valid.  I would want the door tested and listed with the specific material to meet the requirements of NFPA 80.  I should not have to decide in the field with little or no information regarding this solution to the gap.  Thanks for bringing this up.

Greg


----------



## LGreene (Feb 15, 2011)

Thanks permitguy and gvictor.  One more question (for now)...if the documentation of a fire door inspection showed clearances slightly larger than allowed by NFPA 80 (let's say 1/4" to 5/16"), what would you require the facility to do to rectify the situation?  I think for the most part this problem is being ignored because the solution is so costly.  I know that not all jurisdictions are enforcing the annual fire door inspections yet, but there will have to be some protocol for this eventually.


----------



## permitguy (Feb 15, 2011)

I'd simply give them the requirement and let them figure out a way to make it comply.  Basically, "Make this work, or replace it with something else."  In reality, I wouldn't have the support to do that.

Between building settling, sticking latches, mal-adjusted closers, and those #@*$@% sequencers, my hands are pretty full with fire door problems.  Unless it is obvious without a tape measure, door gaps are off my radar for now.  With 100% honesty, if I can get through the primary inspection with doors releasing as required, then closing and latching, its like a second Christmas to me!


----------



## LGreene (Feb 15, 2011)

I hear you permitguy...an extra 1/8" of clearance isn't a big issue when the doors are propped open with a wedge!  I think by "#@*$@% sequencers" you're referring to coordinators.  If I could invent one that would work reliably long-term, I'd be RICH!

So...if I'm interpreting this correctly, the gaps aren't high on your list of concerns, but in order to officially accept a solution you would want to see the results of a fire test showing that a door with ___" clearances with the intumescent product installed was able to perform as required.


----------



## permitguy (Feb 15, 2011)

Correct, but when you say it like that, it makes it sound much easier than its actually going be.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 17, 2011)

LGreene said:
			
		

> ...what is allowed by NFPA 80 (1/8" max. for wood doors, 3/16" max for hollow metal doors


IBC / CBC Referenced standard 12-7-404(b)9 for "fire door assembly tests" states:

"9. Clearances for swinging doors shall be (with a minus 1/16-inch tolerance) as follows: 1/8 inch along the meeting edge of doors in pairs, 3/8 inch at the bottom edge of single swing doors and 1/4 inch at the bottom edge of a pair of doors."

I don't see an exception for metal doors that allows 3/16" inch instead of 1/8" on the meeting edge.


----------

