• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors

LGreene

LGreene

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,166
Location
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
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.]
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
LGreene said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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
 
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
 
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 a moderator:
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?"
Click to expand...
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.
 
Magnetic locks are typical on perimeter exit doors in embassy/consulate/USAID and other high security facilities worldwide where the "attack side" is identified as outside and the "safe side" is identified as the inside. Here we don't want unauthorized people to get in. These locks are also found in facilities where we don't want people to get out without authorization (psychiatric hospitals, detention facilities, etc).

The locks are typically wired through the header to a junction box on the "safe side" where it communicates with the fire command center. During a power outage or when called for by the fire command center, the lock is released.

Only failsafe electrified locksets or electrified exit devices are permitted for stairwell doors or exit doors during business hours.

Electromagnetic locks and electric strikes are not permitted for elevator lobby and stairwell doors because both ingress and egress are required in these locations.
 
Sandman: Electromagnetic locks and electric strikes are not permitted for elevator lobby and stairwell doors because both ingress and egress are required in these locations.
Click to expand...
If a stairwell or elevator lobby door is required to unlock upon fire alarm, the door could be equipped with a mag-lock as long as it also has a passage set if the door is fire rated. The lock would have to meet all of the requirements for egress, and it would also allow for re-entry and the passage set would cover the latching requirement. The issue with using a fail safe electric strike is that the door isn't latched when it's unlocked.
 
I'm not sure which device you're thinking of that creates a "hard latch"...
Click to expand...
The type of devices in the Assa Abloy or SDC link. The Assa Abloy link also discusses the BFM type. They seem to use the term "electromagnetic lock" specifically for the BFM type. "Electromechaincal lock" may be a better term for the "hard latch" type.

Luckily, they're extremely rare.
Click to expand...
Not in my experience. We are always coordinating with hardware designers for power transfer hinges and electric strikes. Yes, the BFM type seems to be dominant, but not exclusive. One reason for the electromechanical type is where power operators are used in doors in fire barriers (very common in hospitals) - an electromechanical device is needed to unlatch/latch the door everytime the power operator opens/closes the door - regardless of security needs - since as a fire rated door, it needs positive latching.

My question is still, does IBC 1008.1.9.8 apply to all types of "electro" locks? Note that some of the hardware discussed by both Assa Abloy and SDC are always openable from the egress side due to the mechanical design - regardless of the status of power. From the SDC link "Unlike a magnetic lock, the failsafe electrified cylindrical lock function 7250 is never locked from the inside and permits uninhibited egress at all times by turning the inside manual lever handle." So how would this work with:

(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.
 
Whoa - Having just posted that electromechanical locks are common in hospitals, I now see that 2009 IBC 1008.1.9.8 does not apply to I occupancies. So how are we supposed to lock-down the ED??! If 1008.1.9.8 applies to "electromechanical" locks as well as BFM locks, then how are we supposed to provide power actuators doors in fire barriers??!!!

Even more important to know if 1008.1.9.8 applies to all types of "electro" locks.
 
Waves of realization of the impacts - In the 2009 version, if a door is required to have panic hardware, NO MAG LOCKS AT ALL????!!! What about all the "buzz-through" or "card-through" doors in occupancies of all types? Many give access to a main corridor which could easily require panic hardware.

P.S. I apologize if this is a thread hijack. Just trying to learn here, and possibly pass on info at my next cross-discipline meeting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Code Inspector's Handbook for Understanding Electric Locking Hardware;

2012 IBC/IFC

IBC1008.1.9.8 (IFC 1008.1.9.8 Electromagnetically locked egress doors. Doors in the

means of egress 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 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 directly interrupts the power to the electromagnetic

lock and unlocks the door immediately.

4. Loss of power to the listed hardware automatically unlocks the door.

5. Where panic or fire exit hardware is required by section 1008.1.10, operation of the listed panic or fire exit

hardware also releases the electromagnetic lock.

Two new codes were added by the CTC (Code Technical Committee) that affect institutional detention. One is similar to 1008.1.9.7 Delayed egress locks, but is designed for the restraint of mentally impaired patients in an I-2 facility. The other is

for correctional facilities.

IBC 1008.1.9.6 Special locking arrangements in Group I-2. Approved delayed egress locks shall be permitted in a Group I-2 occupancy where the clinical needs of persons receiving care require such locking. Delayed egress locks shall be permitted in such occupancies where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or an approved automatic smoke or heat detection system installed in accordance with Section 907, provided that the doors unlock in accordance with Items 1 through 6 below. A building occupant shall not

be required to pass through more than one door equipped with a delayed egress lock before entering an exit.

1. The doors unlock upon actuation of the automatic sprinkler system or automatic fire detection system.

2. The doors unlock upon loss of power controlling the lock or lock mechanism.

3. The door locks shall have the capability of being unlocked by a signal from the fire command center, a nursing station or other approved location.

4. The procedures for the operation(s) of the unlocking system shall be described and approved as part of the emergency planning and preparedness required by Chapter 4 of the International Fire Code.

5. All clinical staff shall have keys, codes or other means necessary to operate the locking devices.

6. Emergency lighting shall be provided at the door.

Exception: Items 1 through 3 shall not apply to doors to areas where persons, because of clinical needs, require restraint or containment as part of the function of a mental hospital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top