Bars Across Non-Required Exterior Doors

[cda]

11.414 UFC 1988

said on the exterior a sign is required if there is storage blocking the door

"this door blocked"

but you cannot put the sign on a required exit or FD access

 

[FM William Burns]

Signage

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.

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.

 

[texasbo]

^ I hear you FM Burns; for reasons I'm about to explain, did you grow up undr BOCA? I can only assume TJacobs and Yankee did.

I know I'm dragging this out, but I'm sure those who are not interested are avoiding this thread, and those who are interested, well, that's why you're reading this.

Anyway, I've been giving more thought to the different cultures of ICBO, BOCA, SBCCI, etc, and I think there may be something there.

Growing up under ICBO, we had an "exits" chapter. Pretty much everything was focused on "exits", and not components of "means of egress". Sec 3304(a), 1985 UBC said "This section shall apply to every EXIT door..." Emphasis on EXIT. Paragraph (k) Additional Doors "When additional doors are provided for EGRESS.. (exact same wording as current IBC)" It didn't say "when additional EXIT doors are provided."

So for better or worse, ICBO clearly distinguished between EXIT and EGRESS. 3304 applied to required EXIT doors, but also had a provision requiring doors to comply with 3304 even if they weren't required EXITS.

Because of this, as I progressed through my carreer as a young plans examiner, plan review manager, BO, and Development Director, I have never even considered that additional doors would not have to comply. I know many of my colleagues in Texas had the same interpretation. I would guess that many others under ICBO had the same interpretation as well.

If I remember correctly, BOCA had the different components of egress, very similar in form to todays IBC. In fact, regarding doors, it might have been the exact same wording as in the current code; using terms "egress" for both required and additional doors.

Therefore, I think my interpretation, and maybe some of the other old ICBO guys, is based on the difference in semantics between the ICBO and BOCA.

Does any of this make sense? Would anyone mind if we went back to the 1988 UBC, the code on which I started, and still often quote as gospel, because it's the only one I remember well?

 

[Yankee]

^ . . . did you grow up undr BOCA? I can only assume TJacobs and Yankee did.

The "yankee" answer to the above sentance is "not yet" : )

Otherwise, yes sure, historical perspective prevails.

 

[TJacobs]

1999 BOCA:

1017.1 General:

The requirements of this section shall apply to all doorways serving as a component or element of a means of egress, except as provided for in Sections 1014.8, 1014.12.2, 1015.5.1, 1015.5.2 and 1015.6.1.

Bold and underline added by me. The bold section is the same wording as 1987 BOCA 812.1; before the comma after egress, 1987 BOCA added ..."from habitable and occupiable rooms; except...".

 

[texasbo]

The "yankee" answer to the above sentance is "not yet" : )Otherwise, yes sure, historical perspective prevails.

Yankee, TJacobs : Didn't BOCA also have very similar means of egress language as today's IBC (exit access, exit discharge, etc)?

 

[TJacobs]

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?

 

[texasbo]

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?

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.

In my opinion, tboth he intent of the code, and the letter of the code is to make sure that if a door is provided for egress, then someone might attempt to use it in an emergency, and it must comply with all requirements of 1008. Someone isn't going to mistake storefront glazing for a door and try to open it.

 

[Plans Approver]

This from the 2003 ICC (& 1996 BOCA) Interpretations book:

"Q: Is it mandatory for nonrequired doorways to contribute to the egress capacity of the room or space from which they lead?

A: No. 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."

Is it still valid? Obviously, other interpretations are possible.

 

[texasbo]

But the question isn't whether they are required to contribute to egress capacity; one of the premises of this thread is that they're not. It's whether or not they can be locked, blocked, barricaded, etc.

Let me ask this: would you guys allow a non-means of egress door to swing out across a 29" drop to grade?

 

[Plans Approver]

But the question isn't whether they are required to contribute to egress capacity

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."

Now you moved the target by adding the 29" drop. This thread is getting ridiculous.

 

[texasbo]

Yes I did read the entire answer. You obviously didn't read the very first post in the thread. The question isn't whether the door has to comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 10, it's whether it has to comply with the provisions of 1008.

And no, the target isn't moved at all; it's a very pertinent question about compliance with 1008; the exact subject of this thread. I'd like your answer.

And Dan, there's no reason to get sh!tty with me; up to this point this has been a perfectly civilized and enlightening conversation, and your opinion is one of those that I value.

 

[Mac]

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?

 

[Plans Approver]

And Dan, there's no reason to get sh!tty with me...

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.

I have read all of the posts from when your original post was the only one.

The interp I posted says that additional doors are permitted, but, must not be identified as exit doors. So by extension you can do almost anything to them except identify them (and use them) as exits including barricading, locking, installing signs such as "Not an EXIT", "Loading only - No step on other side", put storage and equipment in front of it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

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.

 

[texasbo]

OK, picking back up.

Mac, as I've stated several times, 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.

Dan - so you are saying that you would not allow this additional door to swing out over a 29" drop. So you would require some parts of 1008 to apply, but not all of it? How could you enforce it? What section would you cite? I'm not being silly; I agree with you; I wouldn't allow it either under 1008.1, just as I wouldn't allow this door to be locked, blocked or barricaded.

And by the way guys, since I started kicking this tarbaby, I've been doing a lot of internet research. It seems this has come up in enough jurisdictions that many have written interpretations, and I am beginning to think that's what is called for here.

 

[texasbo]

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.

Where did this come from? Interpretation manual?

 

[Yankee]

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?

Very good question

 

[FM William Burns]

Tx,

Cut my teeth on SBCCI and NFPA 101 before comming to BOCA land and now ICCville. I hope you get through this but my opinion still stands, not required are permitted to be locked and in our jurisdiction, signed.

Have a safe and wonderful weekend all, I'll be at the Tigers game Monday if the casino allows me

 

[Markl_AHC]

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????

It always amazes me at what gets approved. Thanks for the link.

As to your question, I'll generalize to "big box" retailers. Here are two very typical brands:

http://www.arm-a-dor.com/index1.html

http://www.detex.com/exit-control-locks.aspx

An additional one which is usually not found in "big box" but does have many innovative security-driven exit hardware designs that would perform better and be far safer than those shown in your link:

http://www.securitech.com/high-security-exit-devices-overview.html

 

[Yankee]

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.

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?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Where did this come from? Interpretation manual? Yep

http://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/Codes_List.cfm?Committees_Id=1&chap_num=10

 

[Yankee]

Where did this come from? Interpretation manual? Yephttp://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/Codes_List.cfm?Committees_Id=1&chap_num=10

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.

 

[texasbo]

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?

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?

And the section I've referenced throughout this thread is 1008.1.

I do realize I'm in the minority here, however, and it's good to hear the other side.