Reply With QuoteThat would be a 'no'..........
BUT - check the relevant building codes, as they may not have been a requirement at build.
I have an integral garage, with FD30 fire door leading into the utility. There are intumescent strips in the door frame, and these have been painter over multiple times over the years. Is it OK to paint over intumescent strips?
That would be a 'no'..........
BUT - check the relevant building codes, as they may not have been a requirement at build.
No
They won’t work when needed
I'm not seeing exactly what was introduced as a new requirement in the "fire safety order 2005" But it may be that the rule on doors to garage was introduced in that, being enacted in 2006.
If your house was built pre-2006, it may fall outwith the requirement (assuming that was indeed when it was enacted.)
The regulatory (fire safety) order 2005 places duties on parties with regard it identifying fire hazards, assessing that risk and taking steps to control / eliminate that risk, it does not apply to private residential dwellings. (It does in communal areas within blocks)Originally Posted by blackal
The requirement for intumescent strips will be listed in building regs. Part B in England. There is no requirement to retro fit, dependant on how old the house is.
To answer the OPs question, they are commonly painted over but there is a chance that the strip will not expand as intended if covered in paint. As such it is best to replace them if it’s a concern
Last edited by Sinnlover; 19th November 2022 at 09:34.
They will be ok. Intumescent materials rely on exposure to heat to activate, typically around 150 degrees plus and a couple of coats of paint won’t do much to inhibit the activation.
I spent a couple of weeks fitting closers and intumescent strips to all the internal doors in a care home where I worked after a visit and "notices" by the local fire officer. All passed Ok following his inspection. The following week, I attended work, to find all the doors held open with plastic wedges "to air the rooms"! Doh! If in doubt, whip them out and change them. (Not my residents!)
Yes, it's okay.
Not in the care home environment.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I was replying to the OP.
Soz, dependant on the strip it is ok to have a couple of coats of paint/varnish.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Thanks all. House is about 40 years old. No idea how many coats of paint have been applied over the years. It's a slightly academic question, as the stuff stored in there is no more likely to spontaneously combust that the stuff in the house. Probably less, as there's no electrical stuff. I don't think my car would physically fit in there.
The requirement for a fire-door between garage and house must have been introduced some time, but I suspect it was much more recent than 40yrs ago.
My house built around 2005 has no special door between house and garage.
The house we used to live in, built in 1996 did have a fire door. No idea if it was a requirement or not.
Fire doors between house and integral garage has been a England building regs requirement for a very long time, as has needing a step down from house to garage floor levels. What did change more recently was the requirement for domestic fire doors to have self-closing devices was dropped, hence it now being harder to recognise whether a domestic door is fire rated or not.
Re painting of intumescent strips, it depends on the manufacturer guidance and whether they bothered to test overpainted strips when having them certified.
Yes - and it's very difficult to find a history of the development of the regs, as most internet searches take you to a recent site/discussion.
You’re not wrong. That’s when 30+ years in the industry and a good memory comes in handy.
Of course Scots regs are a different kettle of fish again. All the fun of Warrants and historically virtually no flexibility unlike the English approved documents. But I digress…
Do elaborate...........................
Just swap them out.
Peanuts to change.
Ok, you did ask. Apologies all for taking the thread off topic but here goes…
I’ve not worked north of the border for many years (hence the ‘historically’ comment), but the English and Scots building control systems were, and I believe still are, totally separate and do differ. Back in the day in Scotland you had to have every detail of the scheme submitted and approved prior to starting work on a site, leading to the issue of a warrant without which progressing work on site was illegal. In addition the Scot’s suite of technical standards were mandatory requirements. For one particular project I can remember completing a set of colour coded Warrant drawings in the office (Guildford) & immediately jumping on a plane to Edinburgh to submit them to keep the project legal and on track - those were the days.
By contrast, south of the border the approved documents are (and always were) advisory and do permit the taking of alternate approaches so long as comparable overall standards are achieved. For instance Approved document B (Fire Safety) is often set aside for larger projects and a Fire Engineering solution used instead. I think the Scots regs might also be advisory these days but I’m not sure on that. The other big difference in England was the ability to work on site without prior approval from the local authority, either using a notice or just cracking on while the plans are still being assessed. It looks like this will be changing for large resi buildings post-Grenfell but we will see.
I did like the Scottish system I knew - although it was challenging to work with requirements were clear and there was little opportunity to bend the rules. I do wonder whether Grenfell would have happened under that regime; I guess we will never know.
Interesting.
My understanding was that the Scottish regime was tougher (and safer) than in E&W.
Not sure that Grenfell modifications would have been allowed in Scotland, and certainly since then - Scotland has reacted pretty quickly.
Scotland would appear to be less influenced by 'donors' and has produced some quite good legislation.
'challenging' is not necessarily bad, and more often than not - is the right way.
Posting Permissions