PDA

View Full Version : Panic Hardware



agb4
January 19th, 2011, 13:42
2006 ibc Section 1008.1.9 requires panic hardware in A use with an occupant load exceeding 50. The second half of the section reads "each door in a means of egress". If the assembly use is required to have two exits but has multiple exits in the space, would you require panic devices on all the doors that lead to the public way?

mtlogcabin
January 19th, 2011, 14:06
Yes if the doors are signed as exits.

fatboy
January 19th, 2011, 15:13
Ditto........

steveray
January 19th, 2011, 15:50
I was in the storage room of my local Target the other day with a door with panic hardware and an exit sign and a flush bolt and a padlock on it.....I got yelled at for a minute...then they did...

georgia plans exam
January 19th, 2011, 16:03
IMHO it doesn't matter if it has a sign or is a required exit. Egress is defined by Webster, in part, as "a way out." The code does not say "exit doors" but "each door in a means of egress." So, any door that provides a "way out" is required to have panic hardware in the in the situation the OP describes.

GPE

pyrguy
January 19th, 2011, 18:50
Agree with GPE. Use the door to get to the outside it is part of the egress. Panic hardware required.

Yankee
January 19th, 2011, 21:05
No just the labeled exit doors. And the other doors should not be labeled as an exit.

AegisFPE
January 20th, 2011, 03:44
The exception to IBC 1028.3 infers that there can be additional exterior doors that are not exits. Such doors should not be signed as exits or be required to have panic hardware, nor be included in the egress analysis.

Bootleg
January 20th, 2011, 04:53
This is what I ran into when as a Building Inspector and I required a correction for a door to swing out on the extior of a building.

This door was not labled and was not a required exit.

Paul Sweet
January 20th, 2011, 12:24
"Each door in a means of egress" also means all intervening doors (corridor, vestibule, etc.) between the space and exterior.

FredK
January 20th, 2011, 13:48
..... If the assembly use is required to have two exits but has multiple exits in the space, would you require panic devices on all the doors that lead to the public way?

All the multiple exits plus any other interior doors until people exit to the outside public way.

brudgers
January 20th, 2011, 14:52
The one's with exit signs need the panic hardware.

Gene Boecker
January 20th, 2011, 15:05
Ben's right.
It's the doors that are intended to serve as part of the means of egress from the assembly occupancy - the ones from the room and then continuing on to the exit discharge to the public way. If the room has four doors out but only two are signed as exits, it is only those two that need to have panic devices since those are the egress elements from that room. For all anyone knows the other doors lead to storage rooms or offices. If they lead outward, fine. But they're not required to be equipped with panic hardware because they are not required to be part of the means of egress. You could padlock the extra doors if you wished (although at that point I'd question the sanity of the person who put them in there in the first place). And then, you need top have panic hardware on all the doors between the room and the public way. Even if the assembly room leads through a large office space that wouldn't otherwise need panic hardware, those devices need to be installed because they serve the assembly occupancy.

I used to be on staff at one of the legacy code organizations. This has been the way it was interpreted then. I've since checked with compatriots from the other two legacy organizations as well as the current staff. This is the right way to apply the language of this section.

LGreene
January 20th, 2011, 15:32
Gene posted his answer while I was digging up some photos, and although I'm not an AHJ, code consultant, etc., the way he described it is the way I've seen the code applied. Similar discussions have occurred on this board before and I'd love to get a final answer with some references from the code to support it.

I've attached some photos...I wish I had just taken photos of the function room when it was empty, but these will have to do. Sorry about the mob of kids, and the owl. This was a medium-sized function room at a hotel. Let me try to describe the layout. On the north wall (behind the owl) was the entrance to the kitchen and some service stations - no exit on that wall. On the east wall was a long bank of windows which are shown to the left of the owl lady. There's a pair with an exit sign and panic hardware at the end of the wall near the kitchen, and another pair without an exit sign but with panic hardware at the opposite end (shown in the photo of my son with the table blocking the door). On the south wall there's a bank of doors that swing in, and are locked with surface bolts (shown in photo #2). In the corner between the south wall and the west wall, there's a big opening with an exit sign - no doors (also photo #2).

In summary - one big opening and one pair with panics - both with exit signs and located remotely from each other. One pair without an exit sign but with panics. One big bank of inswinging "french" doors with surface bolts.

Does everyone agree that the bank of french doors do not have to provide egress, don't need to swing out, and don't need to be equipped with panics?

What about the "extra" exit behind the table? It's functional, and it has panics, but no exit sign. Would you require this door to be kept clear and not allow it to be equipped with anything that would inhibit egress (like if they wanted to add a deadbolt) because it looks like an exit door? Is there some language in the code that would support this?

texasbo
January 20th, 2011, 15:56
Quite honestly, I don't think everyone agrees on any of it, and I don't think they ever will. There are always those who will look at 1008.1, and say that the extra doors leading outside or to an exit are "doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code...", and therefore have to comply with all of the provisions of 1008.

In other words, there are those who will say that the door without the exit sign, but with panic hardware, is not a "required" egress door, but is "provided for egress in numbers greater than required in this code", and therefore can't be blocked. Egress means to go out. It doesn't mean required exit.

This issue has been debated many times, but there is never a concensus. I personally used to be in the "every door has to comply" camp, but am slowly moving away from that, and feel that panics (or panaics) should only be on required egress doors.

Gene Boecker
January 20th, 2011, 17:10
Better Panaics than Paniacs.
You could be a Paniac Maniac!

Examiner
January 20th, 2011, 18:04
Be aware that if there are divisable and/or movable walls that divide the space into other assembly areas of 50 or more; are the extra doors for the times the room is divided giving the smaller rooms their required EXITS? If so then yes the additional doors would require panics and exits signs.

LGreene
January 20th, 2011, 18:07
Good point, Examiner! Would the doors then need exit signs?

TimNY
January 20th, 2011, 19:21
101 has a nice section for labeling "NOT AN EXIT". Granted, it's not in the I-codes, but it is a good idea.

I would side with the "no exit sign, not a required exit, panic hardware not required" crowd.

cda
January 20th, 2011, 20:21
LG

It is hard to give you an answer without some exit analysis

Just because an exit sign is not there does not mean it is not a required exit

I see exit sign happy people an then some that do not install enough exit signs

Bootleg
January 20th, 2011, 22:51
I think the french doors should swing out.

LGreene
January 20th, 2011, 23:38
I think it's interesting how varied the opinions are. And I'm glad to see you CDA because I was wondering if you were sick since I haven't heard from you in like a week.

This function room (I'm sorry if I've hijacked this thread, by the way) would need to have an occupant load of more than 500 in order for the 3rd exit to be required, right? I didn't measure the area but there's no way the load is more than 500. It doesn't have any operable partitions to divide up the room either.

If an architect asked me about this room, along with the official disclaimers that I have no enforcement power and I'm just interpreting the intent of the codes the best I can, I would have said that the extra doors with the panics should be kept clear and should not have any added measures that would prevent egress (deadlock, surface bolts, chain, etc.). This looks way too much like an exit door, and I could imagine someone trying to use it during an emergency. I wouldn't think that the french doors need panics...if I told the architect that during design, he would probably just change them all to fixed lights like the other side of the room.

It seems like some of you agree and some disagree, but my new question is...if you were reviewing the plans for this facility before construction, would you make them change anything? Add an exit sign on the extra pair? Change the french doors to outswinging and add panics?

brudgers
January 21st, 2011, 00:19
If there is a pair of doors with an exit sign, both doors need the panic hardware if the door requires panic hardware.

Without seeing the plans, I can't be definitive, but based on what I see the french doors are fine. They are not part of the means of egress. Besides, with that many doors, a mob will not pile up behind any one of them.

TJacobs
January 21st, 2011, 10:05
2006 IBC:

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

1008.1.9 Panic and fire exit hardware.
Where panic and fire exit hardware is installed, it shall comply with the following:
1. The actuating portion of the releasing device shall extend at least one-half of the door leaf width.
2. The maximum unlatching force shall not exceed 15 pounds (67 N).
Each door in a means of egress from a Group A or E occupancy having an occupant load of 50 or more and any Group H occupancy shall not be provided with a latch or lock unless it is panic hardware or fire exit hardware.
Exception: A main exit of a Group A occupancy in compliance with Section 1008.1.8.3, Item 2.

What is unclear about the text? Any room or space? 50 or more? Each door? It is not just the exit door, it is all doors in the means of egress from rooms or spaces with 50 or more occupants. Period. No interp necessary.

brudgers
January 21st, 2011, 10:10
2006 IBC:

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

1008.1.9 Panic and fire exit hardware.
Where panic and fire exit hardware is installed, it shall comply with the following:
1. The actuating portion of the releasing device shall extend at least one-half of the door leaf width.
2. The maximum unlatching force shall not exceed 15 pounds (67 N).
Each door in a means of egress from a Group A or E occupancy having an occupant load of 50 or more and any Group H occupancy shall not be provided with a latch or lock unless it is panic hardware or fire exit hardware.
Exception: A main exit of a Group A occupancy in compliance with Section 1008.1.8.3, Item 2.

What is unclear about the text? Any room or space? 50 or more? Each door? It is not just the exit door, it is all doors in the means of egress from rooms or spaces with 50 or more occupants. Period. No interp necessary.

Doors which are not designated as components of the exit access are not components of the means of egress.

By your logic, if there is a closet in an assembly space with fifty or more occupants it cannot be locked and must have panic hardware.

Interpretation may not be necessary, but a modicum of common sense is.

texasbo
January 21st, 2011, 10:45
But a closet door isn't a "door provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code". It's a closet door. "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by code" have to comply. And the code says "egress", not "required egress". He says innocently, then ducks and walks briskly away.

georgia plans exam
January 21st, 2011, 10:46
A closet door is not in a means of egress.

GPE

georgia plans exam
January 21st, 2011, 10:47
Oops. Texasbo beat me to it.

GPE

TimNY
January 21st, 2011, 10:53
Are the doors provided for egress purposes, or for aesthetics, or for light and ventilation purposes, or for loading/unloading purposes?

If there is even a hint they are provided for egress purposes, I agree.

I suggest a bank of french doors are provided for aesthetic purposes. If you opened the doors and there was a 2' wide alley on the other side, are they for egress purposes?

mtlogcabin
January 21st, 2011, 10:56
delete post.

TJacobs
January 21st, 2011, 11:02
Deleted as inappropriate by the poster.

texasbo
January 21st, 2011, 11:05
LGreene, if you are looking for good information to put in your blog, or a handy checklist to give to customers, might I suggest: "Be sure to check with your local building department"?

steveray
January 21st, 2011, 11:17
I agree with Tim and Brudgers and whoever else might be on that same line....if it doesn't look like an exit and isn't required to be an exit....no panic hardware...JM2cents But I can see where the differing opinions apply...It will be handled differently in diferent places, maybe a NOT AN EXIT SIGN, maybe getting panics and proper swing, whatever else...

FyrBldgGuy
January 21st, 2011, 12:59
So along this line of discussion the attached floor plan depicts a lobby with attached building wings. The lobby also serves an assembly area for up to 300 people. The lobby is capable of being used as an assembly. Original design plans listed it as both an A-2.1 and an A-3. The lobby is also an atrium serving three floors. The U shape raps around an exterior area with many very large trees, and can not be used for exiting, etc. The exit doors are marked with the arrows pointing outward. Only the exits have panic hardware. The rest of the doors were designed in so the whole area can be opened up for fresh air.
732

steveray
January 21st, 2011, 13:18
1008.1 Doors.

Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1017.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.

Means of egress doors shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors. Mirrors or similar reflecting materials shall not be used on means of egress doors. Means of egress doors shall not be concealed by curtains, drapes, decorations or similar materials.

Again...IF they are clearly marked....exits and not exits...I do not see where I wouldn't have to allow it...some other concerns in that particular situation might be assembly main exit/entrance, and distribution of remaining doors. Basically think of the (extra) doors as operable windows...you could go out them...but you are not supposed to...

texasbo
January 21st, 2011, 13:23
Well, this is one of the best examples I've seen to illustrate this controversy.

Plenty of required exits, but in terms of the total number of doors, the required exits are a very small percentage.

So let's say that all of these doors had key locks on them except the required exits.

Yes, the required exits will have exit signs, but people will still have to essentially "hunt" for an exit that works.

And we all know that in a fire situation, unless someone is very close to the door they entered the building through, if they are 5' away from a glazed storefront door, with grass and trees on the other side, they are going to try to use that door. They are not going to start looking around the large space for one of the 11 out of 79 doors that are "required" exits.

Again, personally, I've somewhat changed my opinion and don't require every door to comply, but examples like this challenge my convictions.

steveray
January 21st, 2011, 13:45
The architects wil usually make the doors comply when they are faced with the prospect of putting 79 "ugly" not an exit signs......or don't call them doors...call them windows, and make them meet those requirements...

texasbo
January 21st, 2011, 14:00
The architects wil usually make the doors comply when they are faced with the prospect of putting 79 "ugly" not an exit signs......or don't call them doors...call them windows, and make them meet those requirements...

The problem is that there is nothing in the code that requires "not an exit" sign.

In the myriad debates we've had about this in the past, some members have said they have adopted an amendment to require them, and you and others in this thread have indicated they might be a good idea. I don't disagree. But the code as written doesn't require them.

LGreene
January 21st, 2011, 14:20
texasbo: LGreene, if you are looking for good information to put in your blog, or a handy checklist to give to customers, might I suggest: "Be sure to check with your local building department"?

My question wasn't relative to a specific blog post or project, just for general understanding of the requirements. I always recommend contacting the local building department if there's something questionable, but a hardware consultant can't give that answer every time there's a door affected by codes. When we look at the plans, we have to know what to do for egress, fire, accessibility, etc. We also have to tie in security requirements, aesthetics, owners' standards, and keep it all code-compliant. If there's something we're not sure of or isn't clearly addressed in the codes, we recommend that the architect talk to the code consultant and/or the building department, but we need to be able to address most scenarios in order to specify the hardware. That's why I come to this board, so I can learn about how the code requirements are interpreted.

FyrBldgGuy - That's a GREAT example. I can't imagine getting an architect to agree to having me specify panic hardware on all of those doors, and the egress path beyond the non-exit-doors may not be properly maintained so do you really want people using them? I'm in the middle of a snowstorm so I'm looking at it from that perspective. Most architects would want double-cylinder deadlocks there so the facility department has control of the doors, and I think the code consultants that we usually work on projects with would agree that it would be acceptable since those doors are not required exits. Obviously the required exits would have panic hardware and exit signs. The IBC doesn't require "not an exit" signage, right? So as long as the hardware consultant didn't do something dumb like make the non-exit doors look like the exit doors (ex. use Blumcraft tubular panics on the exits and matching tubular deadlocks on the non-exits), isn't that ok? (Don't worry, I don't expect everyone to agree. :-) )

LGreene
January 21st, 2011, 14:24
P.S. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE panic hardware! I work for Von Duprin!

texasbo
January 21st, 2011, 14:32
(Don't worry, I don't expect everyone to agree. :-) )


Don't worry, they don't.

Some of us (like me) don't even have the same opinion about this particular subject from day to day...

In my personal opinion, the example makes a case FOR requiring every door to comply. There is nothing in the code that says you can't make non-exit doors look like exit doors. In fact from an aesthetic perspective, it's very likely that the architect would want to maintain a uniform repetition of fenestration details around this open space.

There is nothing to say that the exit doors couldn't be glazed, with a semi recessed panic in the rail, and the non exit doors would be glazed, have the exact same rail, and be locked. The only difference would be an exit sign over the 11 "chosen doors".

With all that said, I'm still reluctantly agreeing that the chosen doors are the only ones that have to comply with 1008.

FyrBldgGuy
January 21st, 2011, 15:15
Here are some more details: all of the "non-exit" doors had door handles and deadbolts. Some of the time they are unlocked and some of the time they are locked. I recently told them to remove all of the door handles on the "non-exit" doors and told them to paint a six inch white line across the glass for these doors and a white sign "Exit" on the exit doors. The lobby has held events up to 2500 people.

733

LGreene
January 21st, 2011, 15:40
FyrBldgGuy: Are the doors in the photo the main entrance/exit? Or some of the non-exit doors?

Rick18071
January 21st, 2011, 16:12
I think the "no exit" sign needs to be tactile.

brudgers
January 21st, 2011, 16:47
But a closet door isn't a "door provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code". It's a closet door. "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by code" have to comply. And the code says "egress", not "required egress". He says innocently, then ducks and walks briskly away.

The french doors aren't provided for egress purposes either.

The intent of the section of code which you cite is to require both doors of a pair to have panic hardware when one only one door is required to meet the code.

brudgers
January 21st, 2011, 16:51
Yes, the required exits will have exit signs, but people will still have to essentially "hunt" for an exit that works.

Replace the additional doors with fixed glass windows having the same dimensions. What's the difference?

brudgers
January 21st, 2011, 16:52
Those aren't doors! They are large casement windows.

texasbo
January 21st, 2011, 16:56
Yeah, yeah. They are doors. Two differences; they don't have exit signs, and they are locked. People would naturally go to them in a panic situation thinking they were exits.

I'm with you; it's just not as black and white to me as it is to some.

I would love to see a "not an exit" provision added.

TimNY
January 21st, 2011, 17:01
Here are some more details: all of the "non-exit" doors had door handles and deadbolts. Some of the time they are unlocked and some of the time they are locked. I recently told them to remove all of the door handles on the "non-exit" doors and told them to paint a six inch white line across the glass for these doors and a white sign "Exit" on the exit doors. The lobby has held events up to 2500 people.

733

Who puts a pull handle on a door labeled "Push" to open anyway.. :)

LGreene
January 21st, 2011, 22:07
TimNY: Who puts a pull handle on a door labeled "Push" to open anyway...

Lots of architects want to see back-to-back pulls. I think that's confusing, but I guess it's acceptable unless the door requires a panic.

brudgers
January 21st, 2011, 22:16
People would naturally go to them in a panic situation thinking they were exits.

Do you have any statistics to back that up or is it AWAG?

texasbo
January 21st, 2011, 23:48
Do I have statistics to back up the postulate that if a building is on fire, a person would head for a door that was very close to them rather than one that was very far away from them?

No, sorry, you got me there... I guess we'll just have to call it AWAG...

Hey, while we're chatting, why does your dog have your dentures in his mouth?

Rick18071
January 22nd, 2011, 11:14
1011.1 requires all exits to have exit signs. (does not say required exits)
1002 definition of exit includes doors at ground level. (does not say required doors)
One exception might apply to this room if it only requires one exit.
This also includes tactile exit sign at each door, and don't forget the directional signs if not accessible at each door.

brudgers
January 23rd, 2011, 14:22
Do I have statistics to back up the postulate that if a building is on fire, a person would head for a door that was very close to them rather than one that was very far away from them?

No, sorry, you got me there... I guess we'll just have to call it AWAG...

Hey, while we're chatting, why does your dog have your dentures in his mouth?

That's the problem with the ICC process. It's based on a bunch of guesses instead of actual experience.

Next time you're analyzing a life safety issue, I recommend Akin's 19th law of Space Craft design... http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

steveray
January 24th, 2011, 09:22
The problem is that there is nothing in the code that requires "not an exit" sign.

In the myriad debates we've had about this in the past, some members have said they have adopted an amendment to require them, and you and others in this thread have indicated they might be a good idea. I don't disagree. But the code as written doesn't require them.

I think the "readily distinguishable" gives you the authority to make that call or push...
In this situation at least...JMHO

FyrBldgGuy
January 26th, 2011, 14:56
LGreene,

The doors were the main entrance/exit and next to them the non-exit doors. Those specific doors have motion sensors and open when someone approaches. After business hours the doors are locked and the adjacent doors meet the egress requirements.

Gene Boecker
January 28th, 2011, 13:03
Let's get back to the question about going to doors, finding them not usable as exits and then having to hunt for the actual exits.

If there are a lot of people in the space, then the doors that are operable as exits will be in use should the other doors (the non-exits) be locked. In that case, the answer is easy, follow the crowd! The people congregating at the exits are in the location of the exits. That is how people move (and yes there are studies to this effect - a very notable study performed in the 1960's which is the basis for much of the code language today. But I digress).

If there are only a few people in the space then they may need to hunt for a moment to find the exit but, the time it will take for the last person to leave the space is less than it would be if the room was fully occupied due to the lower occupant load. You can calculate the time it takes people to exit a space.

If there are doors that are not exits but lead to another space there is no need to put an exit sign there or a "NOT AN EXIT" sign there. The time it takes people to exit is regulated by the size and location of the complying exits. If there are additional doors provided for egress purposes, they are in excess of the minimum and must comply with the exit requirements (including the requirements for exit signage). If they lead to an office, the kitchen at the banquet hall or a storage area, they are not exits. If the door is open, people may try to go that way in a desperate condition but they are not exits.

Exit design in the codes is based on people movement and studies that have been done since before WWII.

And this is NOT based on a bunch of guesses and Ben attributes - having been on several of the ICC code development committees and testified at code change hearings since its inception (and then at the legacy codes before that). although I will readily admit that there are flaws in the process. But I digress once more. The code demands that we provide the MINIMUM number of exits and then design around them so they meet all the requirements for exits. If more are provided - great. Make them meet all the requirements too. But if something is not intended to be an exit, don't try to force it to be one by adding exit signs.

cheyer
January 28th, 2011, 13:28
Agree with Gene 100%.......well almost....

Bottom line is: "If there are additional doors provided for egress purposes, they are in excess of the minimum and must comply with the exit requirements (including the requirements for exit signage)."

But, in our California Fire Code, we do require : 1030.5 Nonexit identification. Where a door is adjacent to, constructed similar to and can be confused with a means of egress door, that door shall be identified with an approved sign that identifies the room name or use of the room.

It appears the opinions on this subject will diverge forever.........

texasbo
January 28th, 2011, 14:27
Exactly. Gene's analysis may be correct, but unfortunately, there's still the wording "when additional doors are provided for egress purposes", and that is where the debate ends up. It doesn't say "required egress". It just says "for egress purposes", and that leads it wide open to interpretation.

We have seen the completely fabricated interpretation that it is meant to apply when a pair of doors is required when only one is required; there is nothing in the code that says (or even implies) that. We have seen others who have said that any door whatsoever that is available to be used is required to comply as if it were a required exit door. I don't agree with that either.

Unfortunately, the language leaves it open, and until it's changed, as you said, opinions will diverge.

LGreene
January 30th, 2011, 12:00
Gene Boecker: If there are additional doors provided for egress purposes, they are in excess of the minimum and must comply with the exit requirements (including the requirements for exit signage). If they lead to an office, the kitchen at the banquet hall or a storage area, they are not exits. If the door is open, people may try to go that way in a desperate condition but they are not exits.

How would you define "additional doors provided for egress purposes"? In the example from FyrBldgGuy, there were a multitude of doors of doors for light, ventilation, etc. Would these be considered additional doors provided for egress purposes because they go to the exterior?

I'm not trying to belabor this point, but this is one of the mysteries that the hardware industry struggles with, and I like to help clear those up to the extent that I can. I think most hardware consultants use the rule of thumb, "If it looks like an exit, it needs to allow egress,"...otherwise known as "If it looks like a duck..." But I think there are some common sense deviations from that rule. As an example, one of my projects had a bank of 8 pairs of doors. There was an operable pair at each end which had panic hardware, and there were other exits from the room as well. The other 6 pairs of doors did not have panic hardware - they had double-cylinder deadbolts and flush bolts, so that they could only be controlled by university personnel (open on nice-weather days, closed and locked the rest of the time).

Were the 6 extra pairs used for egress purposes? No (except on sunny days). Did they look like the exit doors? Well, they were the same style of door with the same glass-lite configuration, but they didn't have exit signs, panic hardware, or a clear exit path leading to them. As a hardware consultant, I don't make the final decisions on those questions - it's up to the architect and the code official to work that out. But in my opinion, changing the extra 6 pairs to panic hardware would have been a problem because the university wanted to hold the doors open on nice days. If the doors had panic hardware and hold-opens, anyone could open them and leave them open creating a security nightmare.

I guess the interpretation issue is how you define what looks like an exit door. Does a door with a double-cylinder deadlock and no exit sign look like a door with panic hardware and an exit sign? Does a goose look like a duck? Does a chicken?

I appreciate everyone's feedback on this topic! Thanks!!

Gene Boecker
January 31st, 2011, 09:40
Sure, its up to interpretation. I'd use the rule that is primarily based on exit signage. That is the one thing that is required for egress doors that is not a part of doors NOT associated with egress. You can put any hardware you like on doors that are not for egress but if you put up an exit sign you are advertising that as a way out. At that point they become "additional doors provided for egress purposes." In the case with the bank of doors, you can lock all of them except the ones advertised as exits.

LGreene
January 31st, 2011, 22:01
That seems too easy, Gene! :-)