TX, on the contrary. We acknowledge that the door is permitted by code to be locked, secured and that signage provides notice that the door may be subject to locking prohibiting use during an emergency event. From a legal standpoint the door is not required to part of the egress system and therefore should be indicated as such to prevent liability in the case it is used during an emergency. Without notification one may be exposed if someone tries to use it in an emergeny. And yes I’m a NFPA enforcer and this is the intent for the usage of the sign as referenced.In my opinion, that could lead to serious problems. By requiring the sign, you're acknowledging that you know people might try to use the door in an emergency situation. Yet at the same time you are allowing this non-required egress door to be locked.
The "yankee" answer to the above sentance is "not yet" : )texasbo said:^ . . . did you grow up undr BOCA? I can only assume TJacobs and Yankee did.
Yankee, TJacobs : Didn't BOCA also have very similar means of egress language as today's IBC (exit access, exit discharge, etc)?Yankee said:The "yankee" answer to the above sentance is "not yet" : )Otherwise, yes sure, historical perspective prevails.
Of course I would approve it. Again, we are talking about non-required DOORS that are provided for egress. Not required means of egress, just egress. Storefront glazing is not a door, nor is it provided for egress. An overhead rolling door isn't provided for egress either, and I would approve that as well.TJacobs said:In the example given, if they wanted to replace the door with stationary storefront glazing, and the project otherwise had sufficient exiting without the door, you would not approve that?
You obviously didn't read the entire answer. "The minimum required number of exits and exit access elements specified in Sections 1014.1 and 1018.1 provide an acceptable level of safety for the occupants. Although additional doorways are permitted, they are not specifically required to comply with all provisions of Chapter 10. Nonrequired doorways are to be constructed such that they serve their intended purpose without creating a hazard to the building occupants or general public. Accordingly, nonrequired doorways must not be identified as means of egress unless they fully comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 10."But the question isn't whether they are required to contribute to egress capacity
Sorry:cry:, didn't mean it that way. The part I thought was ridiculous (maybe the wrong word) was adding a 29" drop on the 3rd page of the thread. If that had been in the original post, we wouldn't be on the 3rd page. The answer would have been easy not only barricade, remove all hardware, screw it closed and cover with gyp. board as though it was never there from the inside.And Dan, there's no reason to get sh!tty with me...
Where did this come from? Interpretation manual?mtlogcabin said:Q: Do the provisions of Section 1008.1 of the International Building Code, which addresses means of egress doors, apply to only those doors necessary to comply with the minimum requirements for the means of egress of a building or structure or from a specific room or space within a building or structure? A: No. The provisions of 1008.1 only apply to those doors required for egress and all other doors that are not required but marked as exit doors.
So if it doesn't have an exit sign above it I guess you can lock em up and burn em up.
Very good questionMac said:To restate the premise, if non-required doors are barred, bolted, or barricaded, what code section would you cite to get the bars etc removed?
It always amazes me at what gets approved. Thanks for the link.cda said:found this looking for something else, wonder why the city got involvedhttp://www.dogpile.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fmidsouthrescue.tripod.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderfiles%2FMAVERICK_BARS.ppt&0=&1=0&4=24.173.70.100&5=24.173.70.100&9=936de2ff996b478eb76f97756c4acb01&10=1&11=info.dogpl&13=search&14=239138&15=main-title&17=10&18=3&19=0&20=6&21=4&22=P5rlczsMzgo%3D&23=0&40=qyaBwd8iuZ%2F9VFDMtyvBOA%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true
anyone know the brand of panic hardware with the built in security bar like used in wal mart????
They are not being provided for egress. This is the basic word I feel you are getting hung up on. A door may lead outside, but it is not an egress door under the code, and the common usage from Merium Webster can't turn it into one.texasbo said:I feel that the intent and letter of 1008.1 requires additional doors, that are not part of the required means of egress, but are provided for egress, must comply.
There ya go "marked as exit doors" indicate that the door is a planned and compliant egress door which would include an egress path both interior and exterior to the building. If it is NOT a compliant egress door along a compliant egress path and it IS marked "EXIT" it is in violation of the code.mtlogcabin said:Where did this come from? Interpretation manual? Yephttp://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/Codes_List.cfm?Committees_Id=1&chap_num=10
You're right - I am getting hung up on the word egress. I'm seeing egress as a door that's put in to allow people to egress the building (or space), even though it's not required. Others are seeing it only as a part of the required means of egress. My contention through these 4 pages, is that if it's part of the required means of egress, why would it even be necessary to have the "other doors" provision?Yankee said:They are not being provided for egress. This is the basic word I feel you are getting hung up on. A door may lead outside, but it is not an egress door under the code, and the common usage from Merium Webster can't turn it into one.The question "reversed" still stands "To restate the premise, if non-required doors are barred, bolted, or barricaded, what code section would you cite to get the bars etc removed?"
and what is your answer to that?