Announcement

Collapse

Plan Review Services

Advanced Code Group (ACG) has been performing plan review services for municipalities, architectural firms, third-party agencies, contractors and code officials for over 10 years with great success and response. We would be happy to assist you with your I-Code plan review needs, whether on a limited or full time basis. Plan review is performed by several experienced inspectors, certified as plan reviewers in different disciplines. We offer expedited plan review services electronically. This has been a well received process that eliminates reprinting of drawings. At the end of plan review, you have the option to accept an electronic stamp on the plans or submit the final, approved drawings for traditional stamping with return via FedEx. Why print, submit then print changes and submit again when this can be done just once?

We will always do our best to work within your budget and allotted timeframe. Feel free to contact our office at 1-877-223-4462 or email us at codes@inspectpa.com for further information or just to discuss your needs.

Thank you,

Jeff Remas
Advanced Code Group
www.InspectPA.com
See more
See less

Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors

    I appreciate everyone's patience with all the door-related questions lately, but I've got a few more.

    There's a new section in the 2009 IBC - 1008.1.9.8 Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors. This section applies to doors equipped with mag-locks, which used to be addressed only by section 1008.1.4.4 Access-Controlled Egress Doors. Section 1008.1.4.4 required the mag-lock to be released by a motion sensor, push button, power failure, and the fire alarm/sprinkler system. The new section requires the mag-lock to be released by a door-mounted release (lock or panic with a switch) and power failure.

    It makes me a little nervous that the lock is not required to release upon fire alarm, and there is no emergency override button in case something goes wrong with the switch in the hardware. What do you think? Would you require additional safety measures even though they are not required by the IBC?

    Here's the new section (BTW...the phrase about the panic hardware is being removed and item 5 added in the 2012 edition):

    1008.1.9.8 Electromagnetically locked egress doors. Doors in the means of egress that are [deleted in 2012: not otherwise required to have panic hardware] in buildings with an occupancy in Group A, B, E, M, R-1 or R-2 and doors to tenant spaces in Group A, B, E, M, R-1 or R-2 shall be permitted to be electromagnetically locked if equipped with listed hardware that incorporates a built-in switch and meet the requirements below:
    1. The listed hardware that is affixed to the door leaf has an obvious method of operation that is readily operated
    under all lighting conditions.
    2. The listed hardware is capable of being operated with one hand.
    3. Operation of the listed hardware releases to the electromagnetic lock and unlocks the door immediately.
    4. Loss of power to the listed hardware automatically unlocks the door.
    [new in 2012: 5. Where panic or fire exit hardware is required by 1008.1.10, operation of the listed panic or fire exit hardware also releases the electromagnetic lock.]
    Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI ~ Allegion, PLC ~ www.iDigHardware.com

  • #2
    No problem

    Key word is "listed"

    And you can speaks better to that then I can

    But I take it as needs to be request to exit listed, is that the correct listing??


    To me it would be like Von duprin or similar,

    Not like where had a company wanting to field fit a switch into existing panic hardware


    As far as fire alarm if the system fails., more then likely will be when my supervisor is chasing me with a gun and the fire alarm has not activated
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZdEH...e_gdata_player The flag is up!

    Comment


    • #3
      Ditto ditto
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZdEH...e_gdata_player The flag is up!

      Comment


      • #4
        No I wouldn't require any additional safety features. It's just the lock that is electromagnetic. There is also additional hardware that you have to open the door.

        Comment


        • #5
          Personally, I view the change as aligning better with the Life Safety Code by using Items 1-4 and future 5 for the means to release the locking mechanism and therefore no need to have a fire alarm interface.


          7.2.1.5.5 Electrically Controlled Egress Door Assemblies. Door assemblies in the means of egress shall be permitted to be electrically locked if equipped with approved, listed hardware that incorporates a built-in switch, provided that the following conditions are met:

          (1) The hardware for occupant release of the lock is affixed to the door leaf.
          (2) The hardware has an obvious method of operation that is readily operated in the direction of egress.
          (3) The hardware is capable of being operated with one hand in the direction of egress.
          (4) Operation of the hardware interrupts the power supply directly to the electric lock and unlocks the door assembly in the direction of egress.
          (5) Loss of power to the hardware automatically unlocks the door assembly in the direction of egress.


          I'll have to look through the proposals to 101 for 2012 to see if it has changed to reflect the PH or FEH there too.

          "Fire suppression is a failure in prevention, practice fire safety, the life saved may be your own"

          Comment


          • #6
            I completely agree with the others; I would only be uncomfortable if the mag locks override the hardware. Because the code requires listed hardware, in my mind it's no different than any other door that unlocks and opens with listed hardware.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for the input! I guess I'm just used to the "belt and suspenders" approach of the access-controlled egress doors section, and the new section relies solely on the switch in the hardware to release the mag-lock. If something goes wrong with that switch, the mag-lock won't unlock.
              Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI ~ Allegion, PLC ~ www.iDigHardware.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes put the fire alarm may not be activated or there may be no means to activate it

                A pull station is not always required, so possibly the only way it will activate is a fire sprinkler head activates or if there are smoke detectors in the building, one senses smoke
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZdEH...e_gdata_player The flag is up!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LGreene View Post
                  Thanks for the input! I guess I'm just used to the "belt and suspenders" approach of the access-controlled egress doors section, and the new section relies solely on the switch in the hardware to release the mag-lock. If something goes wrong with that switch, the mag-lock won't unlock.
                  Very true, but if the mechanism for conventional hardware fails, then the door won't open either. The way I look at it is that the code doesn't require "mechanical" hardware.

                  But believe me, I've never been crazy about mag locks either.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    MEP guy here, trying to keep up with egress issues (we end up dealing with all the active hardware stuff anyway). Please educate me a bit - Is 1008.1.9.8 dealing with both the type of locks where an system of electomagnetic solenoids operate latches to "hard latch" a door as well as the "big friggen magnet" type of lock that simply uses magnetic force to hold a plate mounted to the door against an electromagnet mounted on the frame?

                    Is seems to me that the "big friggen magnet" type is inherantly safer than the "hard latch" type - no doubt that no power = unlocked.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      NYSED has banned electromagnetic locks on buildings it controls.. so do not think you are alone.. you're just in the minority.

                      When asked why, "frankly, we're afraid they will fail".

                      I kind of agree, but I guess the handle could fall of a mechanical pushbar.. I suppose..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I believe it addresses locking devices not "magnetic hold open devices". Hold open devices better release upon FA activation since they are typically used to increase code permitted fire areas :cry:. Hummmm........back to NFPA 80 on door testing :D

                        "Fire suppression is a failure in prevention, practice fire safety, the life saved may be your own"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          FM,
                          The "big friggin' magnet" Dr. J is speaking of isn't a hold open device, it's actually a "hold closed" device with an approx. 6" X 12" electro-magnet usually at the top of the door frame with a steel plate attached to the door. You'd break the door before that magnet will separate from the plate......

                          We usually only see the BFM types because most of our buildings are all glass doors

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks Beach. Oh...I see clearly now. My error in speed reading and obvious lack of experience with BFM's. Thanks for the info and new venture exploring BFM's. Be safe out there.
                            Last edited by FM William Burns; November 24th, 2010, 18:37.

                            "Fire suppression is a failure in prevention, practice fire safety, the life saved may be your own"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Dr. J: "MEP guy here, trying to keep up with egress issues (we end up dealing with all the active hardware stuff anyway). Please educate me a bit - Is 1008.1.9.8 dealing with both the type of locks where an system of electromagnetic solenoids operate latches to "hard latch" a door as well as the "big friggen magnet" type of lock that simply uses magnetic force to hold a plate mounted to the door against an electromagnet mounted on the frame?"
                              Beach was exactly right...an electromagnetic lock is a magnet in a housing mounted on the frame, and a steel armature mounted on the door. When you energize the magnet, it bonds to the steel armature and locks the door. One of the mag-locks I commonly specify has a holding force of 1500 pounds, so if the release device doesn't work, you won't get through the door. The new language in the IBC requires the mag-lock to unlock upon loss of power to the door-mounted piece of hardware which is acting as the release device for the mag-lock. I think it would be better for the mag-lock to unlock upon loss of power to the mag-lock, but that doesn't protect against something going wrong with the switch.

                              I'm not sure which device you're thinking of that creates a "hard latch"...could be a power bolt which is a solenoid-operated bolt that projects from the frame into the door. Those are way scarier than mag-locks because any side load can prevent the bolt from retracting. Luckily, they're extremely rare. Some delayed egress devices have a solenoid that holds the latchbolt projected, but that releases after the 15-second timer to allow egress. The other solenoids found in panic hardware are for electric latch retraction or electric control of the lever and don't have an effect on egress.
                              Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI ~ Allegion, PLC ~ www.iDigHardware.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X