建築物發生火災時，濃煙往往是最大致命原因，為確保垂直避難路徑安全，安全梯區劃之遮煙性顯得格外重要。本研究先就台北市內辦公服務類建築樓層在六層以上，十四層以下之建築物安全梯區劃進行調查分析，進而利用「建築物開口部構件常溫遮煙性實驗方法之研究」所開發試驗裝置，對建築物安全梯區劃既設防火門以門底縫隙、特殊迴路設計與門縫阻擋材料等改善方式，進行測試並比較分析。研究結果顯示：
一、調查台北市辦公類之建築物安全梯區劃防火門，常時關閉式防火門佔有率為100%，關閉率僅有六成，且門底縫隙淨高介於0.8~3.5公分。
二、既設防火門洩漏量於20 Pa時為2.6 m3/(min*m2)，有改善之必要。而於各試驗得出門縫流量係數介於0.27~0.41。
三、各項改善平均洩漏量減少結果如下：改善門底縫隙，縫隙0cm為69.14% ；縫隙1cm為39.84% ；縫隙2cm為16.81% ；縫隙3cm為2.81%。特殊迴路設計中，最佳者為7.10%。阻擋材設計中，地面封條為19.42%；門底擋縫條為53.01%；氣密條為21.10%；氣密條與門底擋縫條併用為92.51%。
四、以氣密條與門底擋縫條併用改善後之洩漏量於20 Pa時0.14m3/(min*m2)，符合CNS 11227及CNS 15038合格基準。
五、封住門底縫隙之改善平均洩漏量減少結果如下：氣密條洩漏量減少70.83%比特殊迴路最佳洩漏量減少46.11%之效果佳。
六、改善門底縫隙中相同的門縫面積，因阻擋材的軟硬特性，會造成洩漏量不同，軟質材尤其在壓力大時導致變形，使洩漏量增加。

When fires occur in buildings, the most common lethal reason is often smoke. In order to ensure the safety of vertical escape routes, the smoke separation of fire escapes seems especially important. This study conducts investigative analysis on fire escape area designation in office buildings in Taipei City with more than 6 floors and less than 14 floors, and uses the “The Experimentation of Detecting Shelter Performance across Building Opening Assemblies in Ambient Temperature” to develop a testing device. The device is used to conduct testing and comparative analysis on existing fire doors in fire escape areas of buildings, in terms of improvement on their gaps under doors, special labyrinth design, and door gaps baffle materials. Research results show:
1.In investigating the fire doors separating from fire escapes in Taipei office buildings, it was found that, 100% of Emergency ExitKeep Closed, there is only a 60% close rate, and gaps under doors are between 0.8~3.5cm.
2.The leakage of existing fire doors are 2.6 m3/(min*m2) at 20 Pa, and this requires improvement. Tests find that door gaps flow coefficient is between 0.27~0.41.
3.For each item of improvement, leakage decreased as follows: improvement of gap under doors, gaps of 0cm produce 69.14%; gaps of 1cm produce 39.84%; gaps of 2cm produce 16.81%; gaps of 3cm produce 2.81%. In design of special labyrinth, the best resulted in 7.10%. In design of baffle materials, adhesive threshold seal produced 19.42%; brush strip seal produced 53.01%; rubber sealing strip produced 21.10%; combined use of rubber sealing strip and brush strip seal produced 92.51%.
4.After using rubber sealing strip and brush strip seal, leakage at 20 Pa improved to 0.14 m3/(min*m2), which conforms to the standards of CNS 11227 and CNS 15038.
5.For closed gaps under doors of improvement, leakage decreased as follows: Improvement is better for rubber sealing strip produce 70.83% than for special labyrinth produce 46.11%.
6.Improvement on the same door gaps areas under doors; softness and hardness of the baffle material result in different leakage levels. When there is high pressure, soft materials tend to change shape, resulting in an increase of leakage.

[1]Clarke, F. B., “Physiological effects of smoke: Managing escape”, ASHRAE Journal Vol. 39 NO.3, March, 1997.p.47-56.
[2]Daniel Gross, “Estimating Air Leakage Through Doors for Smoke Control”, Fire Safety Journal NO. 17, 1991. p.171-177.
[3]Sherman C.P. Cheung, S.M. Lo, G.H. Yeoh, Richard K.K. Yuen, “The influence of gaps of fire-resisting doors on the smoke spread in a building fire”, Fire Safety Journal NO.41, 2006. p.539-546
[4]Masayuki Hirota, Ken Matsuyama, Toshio Yamana and Takao Wakamatsu, “Basic properties of intermediate open door for predicting pressure differences between rooms during a smoke control”, Journal of Environmental Engineering NO.602, 2006. p.1-8
[5]鄭孟昌，「建築物開口部構件常溫遮煙性試驗方法之研究」，台灣科技大學建築系碩士論文，2006。
[6]內政部研究所，建築物防火避難安全性能驗證技術手冊，2004。
[7]內政部營建署，建築技術規則，2006。
[8]NFPA 80,”Standard for Fire Door and Fire Windows”, National Fire Protection Association, American, 1999.
[9]ISO 5925/1: "Fire Test-Evaluation of Performance of Smoke Control Door assemblies-Part 1: Ambient Temperature Test, Geneva, Switzerland, 1981.
[10]DIN 18095 Part 1: Smoke control doors; concepts and requirements, German, October 1988.
[11]「日本建設省告示第2564号の別記漏煙試験方法」，昭和48年。
[12]CNS 11227：建築用防火門耐火檢驗法，第8節室溫遮煙試驗，2001。
[13]林大惠，「防火門遮煙試驗基準研究」，內政部建築研究所，民國93年3月
[14]田中哮義，「建築火災安全工學」，平成14 年改訂版。
[15]John H. Klote, “Smoke Control”, SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering,2nd Edition, Chapter 12 Section 4. 1995. p.230~245.
[16]石忠榮，「防火門五金配件耐火性能研究」，國立高雄第一科技大學環境與安全衛生工程所碩士論文，2004。
[17]Liu Fang, “Opening Flow Coefficient and Its Effect on Fire Smoke Flow”, Journal of Chongqing Jianzhu University Vol.22, 2000. p.86-92.
[18]周鼎金，「建築物理」，裕祥出版社，1999。p.139.
[19]林礽柏，「量販店建築避難安全分析研究」，台灣科技大學建築系碩士論文，2001。
[20]吳友烈，「建築物火災煙控及避難系統之模式分析研究」，2000。
[21]日本建築學會編，崔征國譯，「最新精簡版建築設計資料集成」，1997。
[22]日本建築中心，「建築物總和防火設計法－第3卷避難安全設計法」，日本建築中心，1988。
[23]UL 1784: Air leakage Tests of Door Assemblies, 1990.
[24]BS 476 Part 31: Methods for measuring smoke penetration through door sets and shutter assemblies, 1983.
[25]CNS 15038：建築用門遮煙性試驗法，2006。