Closers on Classroom Doors

[LGreene]

I wrote a blog post a few weeks ago on a change to NFPA 101 2009 regarding closers on classroom doors, and I just want to get some confirmation on the IBC's take on this before the post is published in our industry magazine.

In a nutshell, there's a new exception in 101, which exempts normally-occupied classrooms from having closers. My understanding is that closers wouldn't be required on classroom doors per the IBC, because the corridor walls in fully-sprinklered educational occupancies aren't required to be rated or smoke partitions. Is there anything else I should know? What about existing schools? Was there ever a time when a fully-sprinklered school needed to have rated walls and therefore closers? At what point did the codes start requiring sprinklers in schools?

Here's the blog post if anyone wants to read it: http://idighardware.com/2010/12/closers-on-classroom-doors/

It currently only talks about 101, but I'm going to add a line or two about the IBC because there will be questions about that otherwise.

Thanks!

 

[Coug Dad]

Older UBC's required rated corridors in schools even when sprinklered.

 

[mtlogcabin]

2009 IFC

4604.18.1 Corridor openings.

Openings in corridor walls shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code .

Exceptions:

1. Where 20-minute fire door assemblies are required, solid wood doors at least 1.75 inches (44 mm) thick or insulated steel doors are allowed.

2. Openings protected with fixed wire glass set in steel frames.

3. Openings covered with 0.5-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum wallboard or 0.75-inch (19.1 mm) plywood on the room side.

4. Opening protection is not required when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system .

Looks like you can take the doors off if you want to. However the IBC states

3401.2 Maintenance.

Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed. The owner or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine compliance with this subsection, the building official shall have the authority to require a building or structure to be reinspected. The requirements of this chapter shall not provide the basis for removal or abrogation of fire protection and safety systems and devices in existing structures.

 

[permitguy]

You have an excellent point on the "normally occupied" language in 101. Several schools in my jurisdiction have gone to "track" programs where school is in session all year, and some classrooms will go a few weeks at a time without being used while that "track" is on their scheduled break. Other rooms, such as music or art, may only be used a couple of hours a day by kids from other classrooms. Seems better to have an "all or nothing" requirement and avoid the arguments where 101 is concerned.

In reality, I don't worry about door closers when the building is fully sprinklered, regardless of how it was built. It is a losing battle to keep the 20 minute fusible links (read door wedges) out all year long. I prefer to work with them on closing the doors during fire drills.

 

[JMORRISON]

WA State amended sprinklers into the '94 UBC but still required rated corridors through 2004 when the 2003 IBC was adopted. The 2000 IBC required sprinklers in E and exempted corridor requirements when sprinkled. Interesting discussion with a Principal regarding the use of the "fusible" wood wedge. His comment, "The worst teachers in the school are the ones who don't hold their doors open."

 

[LGreene]

Thanks everyone! You guys are a wealth of information!

The school my kids go to was built in the 70's, is not sprinklered, and has NO DOORS on the classrooms. Several floors of classrooms are connected to a wide-open library. The only time I've ever seen the cross-corridor doors not wedged open was the day I happened to be there during a fire drill. :-(

 

[permitguy]

How many floors? It sounds like you're describing the library as an atrium with no sprinklers and no separation. That is a dangerous situation that has never been permitted by a code that I am aware of. If this is the case, the IFC has retroactive provisions to address the situation (2009 IFC 4603.3.4).

 

[LGreene]

My original question wasn't based on our school, but there are two floors connected to the library - one a flight of (open) stairs down, and one a flight up. When you're in the library you can look up and see the open corridor above and the classrooms are open to the corridor. You can look down over a railing and see the same thing on the floor below. I'll take some photos and post them sometime. The whole thing is wide open. There might be one or two enclosed stairs in the entire place, and there are actually 4 floors - the first floor is kindergarten, lobby, offices, auditorium, and gym, which is open to the second floor classroom level, which is open to the 3rd floor (library, classrooms, cafeteria), which is open to the fourth floor classroom level. I don't think there are sprinklers, but if there are, would that have allowed the school to be built with no separations other than a couple of cross-corridor doors on the first floor (which are always propped open with wedges)?

 

[cda]

built in the 70"s

you would not know what code if any was used then

or whom did the plane review if any

or what deals were struck if any

so yes what you see is what you get.

could it be built today, shouldn't be!!!!

 

[Examiner]

In the SBC school corridors were rated even in buildings with a sprinkler system. However, the classroom doors were not required to have closers. They depended on the teachers closing their doors when not in the room. Generally the classroom doors are locked from the outside. Classroom function hardware where you can egress out but the corridor side of the door was locked.

 

[permitguy]

Going from memory of previous research (as I was in grade school myself at the time):

The first atrium provisions did not show up in the UBC until 1982. Prior to that, designers and building officials in UBC land were literally making it up as they went along. Since the '82 UBC, you would have needed both sprinklers and atrium separation to connect more than two floor levels in the way you describe (smoke control as well, if memory serves). The separation could be rated walls with opening protection, or glass walls with water curtain sprinklers. I don't know about the other legacy codes.

The retroactive IFC atrium provisions I noted above would apply to what you describe. They would require 1-hour separation to be installed unless sprinklers are present.