In commercial buildings, landlords and business leaders prioritise security to protect corporate assets and people from the endless threat of crime in South Africa. Buildings are therefore locked down with different access control solutions, from biometric scanners to mantrap cubicles and magnetic locks. However, in a panic situation, such as a fire or a bomb threat, these security measures can turn buildings into deadly traps.
Nichola Allen of G2 Fire sheds light on this balancing act, explaining how conflicting priorities among specialists often lead to unsafe or inefficient outcomes.
SANS 10400-T is clear on keeping escape routes open, or at least making them easily openable from the inside (among many other safety aspects) in case of a fire emergency. The question is whether companies adhere to these standards and ensure easy egress during emergencies, or if some still require human intervention to unlock doors, etc., before evacuation can continue.
Allen notes that one of the biggest issues is that building policies are made in isolation, often dictated by that particular specialist. So the security policy, for example, is created without considering the emergency evacuation policy and vice versa.
“A prime example is when multi-storey buildings have fire chiefs perform an inspection; they expect the fire escape doors onto staircases to be easily openable from both sides, while the company management wants access control to stop staff using staircases as a means of traversing floors,” Allen explains. “The Fire Department does not want to waste valuable time using an to gain access to a floor in the event of an emergency. When access control is applied to these types of doors, some attempts are made to have fire systems trigger release mechanisms, but because of the conflicting interests between security and life safety systems, these are often not the correct monitored fail-safe solutions they should be.”
This subject has well-documented laws in Europe and the standards that SA follows, but many fall outside our key building standard document, SANS10400-T. Standards such as EN 13637, EN 179 & EN 1125, and BS 7273-4 all cover maglock types, release times, and fire panel integration. Where a door is part of the fire escape strategy, it should be integrated into the core life safety system, and then into the security system as a secondary integration – secondary, not less important. Unfortunately, she says that in practice this is usually the reverse. As such, many of our buildings are actively turned into death traps in the event of an emergency.
“Even at a domestic level in SA, we have a habit of taking advice from security companies to fit metal gates in our corridors to separate our sleeping quarters from the rest of the house and welding bars on our windows. It is a well-known fact that many residential break-ins occur when perpetrators lift roof tiles and access by dropping through the 9 mm rhino board ceiling, bypassing such gates in the process.
“This not only locks us in an isolated part of the property with our potential assailant, but also blocks all standard means of exit in the event of a fire. Yet as residents, it is difficult for us to use the ceiling roof tile route as an exit unless we have ladders, etc., in this part of the property.”
Fail secure or fail fatally
‘Fail Secure’ is becoming a common phrase in the industry where equipment failure or power outages force equipment to default to secure mode. In other words, locks automatically lock rather than using a ‘fail-safe’ option, where they default to open. From a fire safety perspective, this is a poor choice, but in a crime-ridden country, it can make sense to opt for what is perceived as the safest option.
“Sadly, in South Africa, property security is often given priority over life safety,” Allen states. Not enough thought is given to the weight of the problems. Is the risk of petty theft really worth more than having people trapped inside with deadly smoke fumes? Again, the building and its use need to be considered holistically. Serious consideration should be given to the likelihood of each risk and the severity of its consequences, so that all potential risks can be included in an overall plan.
There also needs to be consideration of whether the access control policies are in place to limit staff movement or genuinely provide security. Worrying about where staff choose to have a smoke break should not be more important than providing free access to an escape route.
“Life safety systems, along with the physical routes designed to allow occupants to exit the building, are regulated by many standards that must be adhered to and not superseded by third-party add-ons,” she notes. Adding fail-secure locks to these routes directly violates the building standards and is not the responsibility of the architect or life safety system provider who originally put the correct physical and electronic measures in place.
The building owner and/or contractor who violates these standards places themselves at risk and may be liable in the event of any incident resulting in injury or death. Given the complexity of the law, standards, and insurance coverage, just because a building met the required standards to obtain an occupancy certificate does not mean it maintains those standards or upholds them at the time of an incident. If any changes have been made since the occupancy certificate was issued, insurance may be invalid, and/or the building owner may be directly liable.
“Building owners and company management need to understand that ultimately they are responsible for the safety of their staff and will be held accountable,” Allen states.
Is fire safety and security compatible?
The need for security across industries is a given, but in the event of a fire or bombing, people’s safety must come first. What solutions are there, if any, that can be used in fire escape routes that will support both the needs of security in safe periods, as well as the need for easy escape when a fire occurs (and keep a fire inspector happy)?
Allen says there are two conflicting requirements: securing the building itself and securing the overall site. The easiest way is to split the issue into two parts and address each requirement separately.
1. The fire routes are in place to get anyone out of a building and to a clear point of safety. These routes can have security (policy) mechanisms fitted to prevent people from misusing them on a day-to-day basis, but they are easily overridden when required. These are policies, such as alarmed doors, that will activate audible and maybe visual warnings if used outside their intended scope. Additional CCTV at these points helps ensure that anyone misusing the infrastructure is captured and rebuked.
2. The site itself is secure with maximum measures so that individuals can get free access to the assembly points. However, the assembly points and buildings themselves are not freely accessible from the outside world.
“Many of our business parks already have this in place,” says Allen. “Due to their basic layout, they fail in the fact that they treat the security of the inner buildings like they treat all other aspects of security, with total disregard for other functions the building needs to provide. Emergency evacuation plans should be site-wide, not just per building.
The dreaded inspection
Having a fire safety system and plan in place is one thing, but maintenance and testing are critical to ensure they function as required in case of an emergency. Depending on the building’s size and complexity, Allen says escape routes should be checked either daily or weekly.
Importantly, where buildings have multiple floors, a highly complex layout, or large traffic flows (especially with the general public), they should be fitted with automated systems such as door monitoring or CCTV, with suitable AI algorithms. This improves the responsiveness, as these systems monitor 24/7 and give feedback within minutes of issues arising.
Standards (SANS10139) recommend conducting a weekly fire drill to test the system. Held on the same day and time each week, it also allows the staff to recognise the fire alarm, making it easier for them to know what it is should a real incident occur. It is also important that other linked devices, such as access control and building management systems, are verified to have acted correctly during these drills.
Market services from G2 Fire
G2 provides a complete suite of door monitors and door retainers that are integral to the fire detection loop. These provide feedback on the door’s status and use the fire-retardant cable infrastructure already in place as part of the G2 fire detection system. All devices have unique addresses and can provide feedback to the fire panel with individual naming, ensuring prompt action.
Additionally, G2’s maintenance panel can be installed alongside the principal fire panel, providing discrete, live feedback on the status of every door to other parties in the building without requiring them to access all functions of the fire detection system. Because doors and fire panel functions are vital components of an emergency evacuation strategy, G2’s addressable system is designed to hold fire doors open or close them as needed to mitigate smoke spread and prevent fire from moving between building sections.
The same panel has equipment to monitor doors that must remain shut and provides outputs to locking mechanisms, ensuring they release during an emergency. Furthermore, many of our integrated devices perform these functions without requiring supplemental third-party power.
For more information contact G2 Fire,
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd. | All Rights Reserved.
printer friendly version