Thank you Dorset Fire & Rescue Service - This is exactly what people need to see, albeit some confusion regards what the test is about - Whilst it is not an approved test, it does show clearly, how a standard timber door as opposed to an UPVC door both react under fire conditions - I have had discussions with many folks regarding removing their UPVC entrance doors in the communal areas of their multi-storey block of flats to comply with regulations, which is really tough as some have spent a lot of money on their lovely doors. It is great to see some good visual guidance out there to encourage people in the right direction - Thanks again and keep up the good work - It makes a huge difference - Matt (Fire Risk Assessor).
You can see the difference quite early on. As the test gets underway, the smoke reduces on the fire door, yet remains significant on the plastic one, which gives off toxic gases that feed the fire as the door melts.
It does seem strange showing how fire retardant exit doors can be, surely a better test would be on internal doors. I'm presuming that the fire door is a composite door? These are proven to be much more difficult for criminals to break into, but also the fire brigade would have similar problems gaining entrance to deal with any fire! I'd love feedback from fire brigade.
Good morning Syed! Three elements for fire: Fuel. Air. ignition. In this example, fire is already present. When the door fails it allows more air in to the fire to support combustion. That's why you will have seen the blowback effect when the door first failed and the air rushed in to most combustion. Does uPVC add to fuel? Yes. Eventually. But, eventually, so would the door made of wood. Also, take in to account fumes. A lot worse from uPVC than wood. In dwellings, wood frames often retain the glazing longer than uPVC. Occasionally, glass can be seen still in wood framed windows after the fire.
Sorry can you tell me the purpose of this test. Are you trying to say the pvc is no good as the door melts. So this mean air will get into prop courses the fire to spread quicker!
@@aceman0000099 Hi > Not so sure this is valid real life test > of partial use > I am pretty sure everyone stacks wooden pallets or combustable material by their exit door. If the do they should not of course. Most exits doors in flats would be clear of such debris or should be. From reading extensively about legal recommendations & the law > some Fire Officers thought it wise to allow some smoke to exit the flat doors and set off communal fire alarm. The plastic seemed to last about 10 minutes under this not too authentic scenario. I would expect under normal conditions of an internal flat / house fire the door to last closer to 20 minutes depending on the proximity to the fire. For example most schools expect children to vacate the premises within 2 minutes > 10 minutes to 20 minutes would seem reasonable. Not sure what the escape time is for high rise & of course the stay put policy that was adopted, now looks decidedly wrong ! I do worry a little about disabled people > deaf or physical or learning disability etc.
@@peterengland5792 no its not a "real life" test. Its not designed to simulate a typical fire. They used a massive fire so that the difference in performance would be very amplified. They're not wanting to know objectively how bad the plastic door is, only how much worse than the fire door. Its only for comparison. The wood was placed there so that the fire didn't run out of fuel too early
I was about to say the same. Clearly a much longer lighting time inside the UPVC door. Not saying it would win by any means, but that looked to be an unfair test
Thank you Dorset Fire & Rescue Service - This is exactly what people need to see, albeit some confusion regards what the test is about - Whilst it is not an approved test, it does show clearly, how a standard timber door as opposed to an UPVC door both react under fire conditions - I have had discussions with many folks regarding removing their UPVC entrance doors in the communal areas of their multi-storey block of flats to comply with regulations, which is really tough as some have spent a lot of money on their lovely doors. It is great to see some good visual guidance out there to encourage people in the right direction - Thanks again and keep up the good work - It makes a huge difference - Matt (Fire Risk Assessor).
I was going to fit a uPVC door between our garage and the house to stop draughts, think I'll fit a fire-door now! Great video.
You can see the difference quite early on. As the test gets underway, the smoke reduces on the fire door, yet remains significant on the plastic one, which gives off toxic gases that feed the fire as the door melts.
It's probably the increased access to air that is feeding the fire as the door melts and lets air in.
It does seem strange showing how fire retardant exit doors can be, surely a better test would be on internal doors. I'm presuming that the fire door is a composite door? These are proven to be much more difficult for criminals to break into, but also the fire brigade would have similar problems gaining entrance to deal with any fire! I'd love feedback from fire brigade.
Were cold smoke seals on the fire door used in this test?
can you say if upvc door adds as fuel to fire or melts out for fire to escape?
Good morning Syed!
Three elements for fire: Fuel. Air. ignition.
In this example, fire is already present. When the door fails it allows more air in to the fire to support combustion. That's why you will have seen the blowback effect when the door first failed and the air rushed in to most combustion.
Does uPVC add to fuel? Yes. Eventually. But, eventually, so would the door made of wood.
Also, take in to account fumes. A lot worse from uPVC than wood.
In dwellings, wood frames often retain the glazing longer than uPVC. Occasionally, glass can be seen still in wood framed windows after the fire.
Sorry can you tell me the purpose of this test.
Are you trying to say the pvc is no good as the door melts. So this mean air will get into prop courses the fire to spread quicker!
The test shows and compares how each door is resistant to fire
@@aceman0000099 Hi > Not so sure this is valid real life test > of partial use > I am pretty sure everyone stacks wooden pallets or combustable material by their exit door. If the do they should not of course. Most exits doors in flats would be clear of such debris or should be.
From reading extensively about legal recommendations & the law > some Fire Officers thought it wise to allow some smoke to exit the flat doors and set off communal fire alarm.
The plastic seemed to last about 10 minutes under this not too authentic scenario. I would expect under normal conditions of an internal flat / house fire the door to last closer to 20 minutes depending on the proximity to the fire.
For example most schools expect children to vacate the premises within 2 minutes > 10 minutes to 20 minutes would seem reasonable. Not sure what the escape time is for high rise & of course the stay put policy that was adopted, now looks decidedly wrong ! I do worry a little about disabled people > deaf or physical or learning disability etc.
@@peterengland5792 no its not a "real life" test. Its not designed to simulate a typical fire. They used a massive fire so that the difference in performance would be very amplified. They're not wanting to know objectively how bad the plastic door is, only how much worse than the fire door. Its only for comparison.
The wood was placed there so that the fire didn't run out of fuel too early
an air lock would last the longest
to kill the residents
No shit
I think we should all just stay clear of dorset.
Strange test. Where he lights one fire for 5 sec9nds and the other one for 35 sec9nds .then compares 2 different fires
I was about to say the same. Clearly a much longer lighting time inside the UPVC door. Not saying it would win by any means, but that looked to be an unfair test