• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Bars Across Non-Required Exterior Doors

T

texasbo

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
1,059
I'd like to just get a quick show of hands from the members of this forum, because I value your opinions.

If an occupancy provides an additional exterior door that could be used for egress, but is not required means of egress, do you allow them to put bars (or chains, or key locks, etc) across the door to keep the door from being broken into?
 
See Section 1008.1 Doors, in the `06 IBC:

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 :Next('./icod_ibc_2006f2_10_sec018_par001.htm')'>Section 1018.2.

Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet

the requirements of this section.

IMO, everything else kicks in.

.
 
No. Not if it can be seen as a door. If they want remove it or permenatly cover it where it can not be identified as a door then I am willing to listen and re-evaluate the means of egress.
 
globe trekker said:
No! Not blocked and with an approved type of lock. See Section1008.1.8.3, # 2.

.
Click to expand...
But 1008.1.8.3 is a sub paragraph of 1008.1 which is for means of egress doors.
 
Globe Trekker: This isn't a means of egress door. 1008.1 is only for means of egress doors.
 
Key part of 1008.1 ...doors provided for egress purposes shall...

Not all doors have to comply with 1008.1

If the door is not a required exit, does not have an exit sign, and is not intended to be used as a normal way to leave the building then it is not "provided for egress purposes" and does not have to comply with the lock and latch door swing etc provisions. Signage "entrance only" or "not an exit" can clarify this for swinging doors.

Examples--

Entrance only doors that swing into the building.

Overhead doors as for loading docks and vehicle entrances which can be used for egress but are not intended as egress doors and cannot comply with egress door requirements.
 
texasbo originally stated:

If an occupancy provides an additional exterior door that couldbe used for egress, but is not required means of egress, do you allow them to put bars (or chains,

or key locks, etc) across the door to keep the door from being broken into?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this potential application fall under Section 1008.1 If not, then why not? I

understand that the extra door is not a MOE door, but texasbo asked if it WAS used an egress

door, is it required to not be blocked / locked?

IMO, even though the extra door is not a MOE door, it will not matter if people have to

use it as one in an emergency.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
globe trekker said:
texasbo originally stated: Wouldn't this potential application fall under Section 1008.1 If not, then why not? I

understand that the extra door is not a MOE door, but texasbo asked if it WAS used an egress

door, is it required to not be blocked / locked?

.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right, someone could use it to go outside of the building, but it's not required. By the way, as always, I really appreciate the input.
 
texasbo said...If an occupancy provides an additional exterior door that could be used for egress,

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.

The definition of "Means of Egress" does not specify if a door is required or not.

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.

Isn't this a door that "could" be used for egress as stated in the OP?

I would say it is required to meet the specifications of 1008.1
 
We had this situation at a local church building, where the architect had designed one more door than the owner really wanted or the code required. The owner did not want to pay to remove the door and wall it in. The fire chief and building official agreed that they could put a large "NOT AN EXIT" sign on each face of the door, just like Mech suggested above.

The church annually conducts exit drills (we're in earthquake county). No one ever confuses this for an exit door. Since they never enter through the door, they never default to it for exiting.
 
Thanks for all of the responses. I was playing devil's advocate with Globe Trekker; I actually agree with him, Mule and others who say that if additional doors are provided, they must comply.

Surprisingly, our fire marshal (who is a good code guy, by the way) disagrees. He says that if they want to put bars, chains, key locks, etc. on any door that's over and above required means of egress (whether it's a school, night club, etc.), then that's ok with them.

I think that's dangerous. In a panic situation, many people will choose the way they came in, but many will choose the door that's closest to them. If that door looks like an exit, but has been locked, it could be tragic. I feel that 1018.2 applies, but I guess if they just say "we're not providing this door for egress purposes", then that makes it ok...
 
Not provided for egress purposes. A door leading outside is not providing egress as defined in the code. If you were going to go down this slippery slope, then all doors leading out of the room even through through other spaces as permitted in an egress path by code would also need to be treated the same way as they might be "confused" as an egress door.
 
""Surprisingly, our fire marshal (who is a good code guy, by the way) disagrees. He says that if they want to put bars, chains, key locks, etc. on any door that's over and above required means of egress (whether it's a school, night club, etc.), then that's ok with them."""

maybe have him review the rhode island club fire, where they bail out through the windows, "not provided for egress purposes"
 
Yankee said:
Not provided for egress purposes. A door leading outside is not providing egress as defined in the code.
Click to expand...
Actually the code defines "means of egress", not "egress". The definition of "means of egress" is general, it doesn't differentiate between "required" means of egress, and "means of egress".

1008.1 then goes on to say that "doors provided for egress purposes (note that it doesn't say required means of egress, just egress) in numbers greater than required...shall meet the requirements of this section". By this, the code implies that there is required means of egress, and non-required means of egress, and that they shall be treated the same, as far as doors go.

If I put a door in the back of my building so people can go outside of the building, it is an egress door (not a REQUIRED means of egress door), and by code, it has to comply with 1008. If I put the exact same door in the exact same place, and tell the building department it's for loading only, and not egress, then it doesn't have to comply. The code requirement can be manipulated by what the tenant tells the building department, regardless of how the door is used. That's the slippery slope.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
texasbo,

One solution would be to install a compliant type of latching mechanism ( i.e. - one operation

to open ), or a panic bar and install a sign that says " NOT AN EXIT ".

This would be compliant and still offer a ' non-MOE door ' for emergency purposes.

Also, I believe that as the BO, you can override the Fire Marshall if you believe that

a "high risk" element is present.

.
 
globe trekker said:
texasbo,One solution would be to install a compliant type of latching mechanism ( i.e. - one operation

to open ), or a panic bar and install a sign that says " NOT AN EXIT ".

This would be compliant and still offer a ' non-MOE door ' for emergency purposes.

Also, I believe that as the BO, you can override the Fire Marshall if you believe that

a "high risk" element is present.

.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and good points. The problem is that although I think he's wrong, I'm not convinced he's wrong, as far as the letter of the code goes. There is even stronger language in the Fire Code, and FD IS responsible for maintenance. That's the whole reason I came here; to get opinions from people that I respect. And as usual, some very smart people have very different opinions. Isn't it amazing that something that we take for granted and think is so simple such as doors can be controversial?
 
texasbo said:
Actually the code defines "means of egress", not "egress". The definition of "means of egress" is general, it doesn't differentiate between "required" means of egress, and "means of egress". 1008.1 then goes on to say that "doors provided for egress purposes (note that it doesn't say required means of egress, just egress) in numbers greater than required...shall meet the requirements of this section". By this, the code implies that there is required means of egress, and non-required means of egress, and that they shall be treated the same, as far as doors go.

If I put a door in the back of my building so people can go outside of the building, it is an egress door (not a REQUIRED means of egress door), and by code, it has to comply with 1008. If I put the exact same door in the exact same place, and tell the building department it's for loading only, and not egress, then it doesn't have to comply. The code requirement can be manipulated by what the tenant tells the building department, regardless of how the door is used. That's the slippery slope.
Click to expand...
1008.1 does in fact say "means of egress" as in "doors serving a means of egress system". the means of egress system is the defined means of egress, both the "required" egress and any "extra" defined egress, but not other doors not defined in a means of egress path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top