Manual Flush Bolts on Fire Doors

[LGreene]

I will try to keep this brief, but I want to explain fully. Manual flush bolts are mounted on the edge of the inactive leaf of a pair of doors, and the bolts are projected and retracted with a little lever on the door edge. You often see them on retail entrance doors (the door that you try to push open and it doesn't open).

NFPA 80 - Standard for Fire Doors typically requires positive latching, which would require automatic flush bolts, not manual. There is an exception for manual flush bolts on unoccupied rooms like a storage or mechanical room where allowed by the AHJ. The door closer on that inactive leaf can also be omitted if allowed by the AHJ.

The 1999 edition of NFPA 80 was pretty clear on this, but the 2007 edition makes you hunt around for it and people are asking questions. So, here are my questions for you:

1) Do you have any concerns about using manual flush bolts and omitting a closer on the inactive leaf of a fire door leading to an unoccupied room?

2) Since the standard allows this application "where approved by the AHJ," would you expect the hardware consultant or architect to seek official approval, or is it just part of the plan review? I have specified this application hundreds of times and never had a problem with an AHJ.

I just pulled this out to answer someone's question, so I'll post the NFPA 80 sections below in case you want to reference them:

NFPA 80 - 1999: 2-4.4.5 Where a pair of doors is needed for the movement of equipment and where the inactive leaf of the pair of doors is not required for exit purposes, labeled, top and bottom, self latching or automatic flush bolts, or labeled two-point latches shall be permitted.

Exception: Manually operated, labeled, top and bottom flush-mounted or surface-mounted bolts on the inactive leaf of a pair of doors shall be permitted to be used where acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, provided they do not pose a hazard to safety to life. This provision limits their use to rooms not normally occupied by humans (for example, transformer vaults and storage rooms). The inactive leaf shall not require a closer.

NFPA 80 - 2007: 6.4.4.3 All single doors and active leaves of pairs of doors shall be provided with an active latch bolt that cannot be held in a retracted position as specified in the individual manufacturer’s published listings.

6.4.4.5.1* Manually operated, labeled, top and bottom flush mounted or surface-mounted bolts on the inactive leaf of a pair of doors shall be permitted to be used where acceptable to the AHJ, provided they do not pose a hazard to safety to life.

A.6.4.4.5.1 This provision limits their use to rooms not normally occupied by humans (e.g., transformer vaults and storage rooms).

6.4.1.1* Unless otherwise permitted by the AHJ, a closing device shall be installed on every fire door.

A.6.4.1.1 It is the intent of the standard that most fire doors will have a closing device. However, in limited circumstances the closer might not be necessary because the door leaf is inactive and is normally in the closed position. Examples of such applications include pairs of doors to mechanical equipment rooms and certain industrial areas where an inactive leaf is provided and is infrequently used to permit large equipment to be moved through the door opening. In such instances, the AHJ should be reasonably assured that the inactive leaf normally will be closed and latched. Another example where the AHJ can omit the requirement for a closer involves communicating doors between hotel/motel sleeping rooms. In this instance, when the communicating rooms are occupied by separate parties, the communicating doors are part of the guest room separation and normally would be closed. However, if the suite of rooms is occupied by a single party, the communicating doors are no longer part of the guest room separation because the suite of rooms would be considered a single guest room.

 

[Doorman]

Hi Lori. Sort of odd one of your threads didn't get any attention...

FWIW, I generally discourage manual FB on a rated pair unless the room is too small to stand in. This may simply be Doorman being a little retentive, but I have never had an inspector come along and tell the contractor to remove the AFB, coordinator and closer, replacing them with manual FB. The other way around, more that a few times that has happened.

So, I guess your question still stands: What do the AHJ generally look for as the limit of manual FB on a rated pair?

 

[Inspector Gift]

We do not allow them other than for storage or mechanical rooms.

 

[Coug Dad]

IBC Section 1008.1.9.4 (2009) allows manual flush bolts in many instances where the inactive leaf is not required for egress. I don't have a problem with following the code.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I can't really comment too much on the NFPA, but I agree with Coug Dad. If it meets the prescriptive requirements of Section 1008, then it is kosher in my book, which is IBC. Thanks to the State Fire Marshall, I don't have all of those NFPA books lying around.

 

[Doorman]

IBC Section 1008.1.9.4 (2009) allows manual flush bolts in many instances where the inactive leaf is not required for egress. I don't have a problem with following the code.

Well, okay. NFPA 80 - 2007: 6.4.4.3 says "All single doors and active leaves of pairs of doors shall be provided with an active latch bolt..." That is the code.

6.4.4.5.1 says "Manually operated, labeled, top and bottom flush mounted or surface-mounted bolts on the inactive leaf of a pair of doors shall be permitted to be used where acceptable to the AHJ...".

I have this discussion often. A facility owner or a design professional want to use manual FB in a rated pair that, in my opinion, might not pass muster. "Well, that's what I want!" I ask, Have you had it reviewed, and the response is always, "Well, no, but that's what I want!"

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

"Manually operated, labeled, top and bottom flush mounted or surface-mounted bolts on the inactive leaf of a pair of doors shall be permitted to be used where acceptable to the AHJ...".

Other than IBC references, our AHJ does not review for NFPA, but if it did, shall be permitted to be used where acceptable to the AHJ...would be acceptable, as you say, upon review.

 

[Coug Dad]

Doorman confirms my point. Active leafs require ative latches. Inactive leafs are allowed manual bolts when allowed by the AHJ. The IBC is the AHJ and permits manual flush bolts as specified in 1008.1.9.4 (2009).

 

[Doorman]

Soooo....

You're telling me I should stop being so anal retentive? Took me a long time to develop that.

:-o

 

[AegisFPE]

IBC Section 715.4.8 mandates "Fire doors shall be self- or automatic-closing in accordance with this section." There does not appear to be an applicable exception to this provision.

The confusion comes in Section 715.4.9 Latch Required. "Unless otherwise specifically permitted... both leaves of pairs of side-hinged swinging fire doors shall be provided with an active latch bolt that will secure the door when it is closed."

Should the provisions of 1008.1.9.4 be considered to specifically permit the absence of active bolts in fire doors? Or are those exceptions applicable to doors other than fire doors, and the "otherwise specifically permitted" conditions would be such as found in Exception 1 to Section 710.5 where the manufacturer's listing does not require positive-latching hardware?

 

[Doorman]

"Unless otherwise specifically permitted... both leaves of pairs of side-hinged swinging fire doors shall be provided with an active latch bolt that will secure the door when it is closed."

The question Lori is asking is specifically regarding manual vs. automatic flushbolts in the inactive leaf of a fire rated pair of swinging doors.

A non-rated pair of doors not in egress path, manual flush or surface bolts are generally no trouble. Storage for tables/chairs, general storage, exterior door of mechanical room... No problem.

I read Lori's OP to be regarding the Unless otherwise specifically permitted... part. The mechanism for otherwise permitting is the local AHJ. As a hardware specifier I seldom use manual flushbolts in a rated pair unless the room is, literally, too small to stand in (shallow elec closet, communication closet, that sort of thing). Am I being too anal retentive about this issue?

 

[AegisFPE]

A non-rated pair of doors not in egress path, manual flush or surface bolts are generally no trouble. Storage for tables/chairs, general storage, exterior door of mechanical room... No problem.

I agree; this is addressed in Section 1008.1.9.4 which is concerned about allowing doors to be opened so that occupants may exit.This is a different intent than 715.4.9 which seeks to be sure that the doors are closed and latched in order to contain a fire. It is hard for me to accept that the IBC would permit a pair of doors in a fire wall to not be secured, though I can see that there is room for interpretation either way.

I disagree that the IBC's "unless otherwise specifically permitted" is the AHJ's opinion; I read it as "unless otherwise specifically permitted in the IBC."

The OP reference to NFPA 80 provisions allowing AHJ leeway would not be applicable in IBC land, based on Section 102.4, which states "Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes, the provisions of this code shall apply." There is plenty of language in the IBC addressing latching, such that NFPA 80 latch requirements need not apply; the AHJ would be bound by the provisions of the IBC.

The question I see is whether or not the exceptions to 1008.1.9.4 trump 715.4.9.

 

[LGreene]

Thanks everybody! It's interesting that most of you don't seem to refer much to NFPA 80, which is *THE* reference on fire doors for the door industry. When we go to door and hardware school (yes, really), we spend hours highlighting and annotating our copies of NFPA 101, NFPA 80, and A117.1, and we don't spend any time at all on the IBC or IFC. Oh well, job security for me.

Anyway, it seems like the general consensus is that using manual flush bolts on the inactive leaf of a pair to a storage or mechanical room is not objectionable to most of you, which is supported by the fact that I have never in 25 years had an AHJ question that application even though I've used it on basically every project. The alternative, automatic flush bolts and a coordinator, tends to be very problematic and often leads to damaged doors and doors that don't latch, so it could actually be considered less effective than manual flush bolts for keeping these doors closed and latched.

Doorman - Nobody wants to call you anal retentive , but unless someone else chimes in I'm not going to limit this application to rooms that are too small to stand in and stick to rooms that are "not normally occupied by humans."

Thanks again!

 

[Doorman]

Doorman - Nobody wants to call you anal retentive...

Oh, no problem. I've managed to earn it, Lori. :wink:

The alternative, automatic flush bolts and a coordinator, tends to be very problematic and often leads to damaged doors and doors that don't latch...

This is a completely valid point. Hollow metal doors seem to be less prone to this sort of maintenance neglect than wood doors. To be honest, I always spend a little bit of time lobbying for HM doors where powder core pairs of wood doors are scheduled.

Thanks for this, Lori. Good discussion. Thanks everyone for piping in.

Doorman

 

[mtlogcabin]

Lori

The IBC references NFPA 80 in 10 sections. Maunual flush bolts is specific in 1008.1.9.4 and does not reference NFPA 80. I have always been taught the code always over rides a standard.

IBC Sections

410.3.5, 508.2.5.2, 715.4, 715.4.5, 715.4.6, 715.4.7.1, 715.4.8.2, 715.5, 715.5.5, 1008.1.4.3

 

[Builder Bob]

Thanks everybody! It's interesting that most of you don't seem to refer much to NFPA 80, which is *THE* reference on fire doors for the door industry. When we go to door and hardware school (yes, really), we spend hours highlighting and annotating our copies of NFPA 101, NFPA 80, and A117.1, and we don't spend any time at all on the IBC or IFC. Oh well, job security for me.

It is interesting that the testing criteria for doors for UL or other third party listing in based upon NFPA 80 (Same thing with commercial hoods except NFPA 96 is the referenced standard).

The IBC and IFC address this issue by saying that devices and items have to be listed and shall be maintained in accordance with manufacture's guides and third party listing (severely paraphrased).

The dance between NFPA 96 and the IFC/IMC/IFGC etc. often makes for interesting talks and discussions amongst code people, manufacturers, fire marshals etc.

All the groups listed basically want the same thing, but all three have to approach the concept from different avenues ---- thus one members’ signature indicates ICC - Intentionally not clear or concise.

 

[LGreene]

Lori The IBC references NFPA 80 in 10 sections. Maunual flush bolts is specific in 1008.1.9.4 and does not reference NFPA 80. I have always been taught the code always over rides a standard.

IBC Sections

410.3.5, 508.2.5.2, 715.4, 715.4.5, 715.4.6, 715.4.7.1, 715.4.8.2, 715.5, 715.5.5, 1008.1.4.3

Huh - interesting point. Wouldn't this section bring in the NFPA 80 requirements by reference?

715.4 Fire door and shutter assemblies. Approved fire door and fire shutter assemblies shall be constructed of any material or assembly of component materials that conforms to the test requirements of Section 715.4.1, 715.4.2 or 715.4.3 and the fire protection rating indicated in Table 715.4. Fire door frames with transom lights, sidelights or both shall be permitted in accordance with Section 715.4.5. Fire door assemblies and shutters shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this section and NFPA 80.

Section 1008.1.9.4 doesn't reference NFPA 80, but it does allow manual flush bolts to be used on the type of room we're talking about - storage and equipment. (What's an equipment room in IBC terms?)

 

[Builder Bob]

Huh - interesting point. Wouldn't this section bring in the NFPA 80 requirements by reference? Fire door assemblies and shutters shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this section and NFPA 80.[/i]

This specific code section states that the installation shall be in accordance with NFPA 80 but it doesn't state that the doors have to be maintained in accordance with NFPA 80........ Thus the round robin discussions start...(Thanks ICC )

 

[mtlogcabin]

Section 1008.1.9.4 doesn't reference NFPA 80, but it does allow manual flush bolts to be used on the type of room we're talking about - storage and equipment.

That is why I believe NFPA 80 is not applicable to storage and equipment rooms.

(What's an equipment room in IBC terms)?

Been trying to figure that one out for a long time :banghd

Usually a room that contains fixed equipment serving the building. HVAC, electrical, kitchens, pool equipment, emergency generator room. Basically a room that a large opening would be needed to R & R equipment, machinery through.

 

[LGreene]

This specific code section states that the installation shall be in accordance with NFPA 80 but it doesn't state that the doors have to be maintained in accordance with NFPA 80........ Thus the round robin discussions start...(Thanks ICC )

I would think that the hardware that's installed on a fire door would fall under the installation requirements, so the IBC statement, "Fire door assemblies and shutters shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this section and NFPA 80" would effectively bring in the hardware requirements of 80, no? For example, per NFPA 80, fire doors are required to have steel ball-bearing hinges of a certain size, a certain quantity, etc. (or hinges that are listed for use on fire doors). The IBC doesn't mention any hinge requirements for fire doors, so if the IBC reference didn't include the hardware, there would be no hinge requirements if you're only enforcing the IBC. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm beating a dead horse, but it's really important for the door and hardware industry to understand how the AHJs look at things like this.

Regarding the lack of a requirement for maintaining the doors in accordance with NFPA 80, that makes sense I think because the IBC is used for construction and not maintenance. But the IFC (2009) does require fire doors to be maintained in accordance with NFPA 80: "703.2 Opening protectives. Opening protectives shall be

maintained in an operative condition in accordance with NFPA 80. Fire doors and smoke barrier doors shall not be blocked or obstructed or otherwise made inoperable. Fusible links shall be replaced promptly whenever fused or damaged. Fire door assemblies shall not be modified."

Because one of the maintenance requirements of NFPA 80 is that all fire doors are inspected annually, documented, and any deficiencies repaired/replaced "without delay," this means that the building owner must conduct (or hire someone to conduct) annual fire door inspections if a jurisdiction has adopted the 2009 edition of the IFC, which references the 2007 edition of 80, which includes the annual inspection requirements.

I'm pretty sure that the next edition of NFPA 80 will require fire doors to be inspected as part of the installation requirements, which will be great because many fire door deficiencies are present at that time, so if this requirement is enforced the building owner will know that he's getting code-compliant fire doors from the start. Of course, technically we have to wait until an edition of the IBC references the 2013 edition of NFPA 80, but I've got time.

 

[Builder Bob]

Not all AHJ are in the unamended IFC - 2009 or 2012 ed. The State of SC is under the 2006 ed of the IFC/IBC. Don't disagree with annual inspections of fire doors....for cetian occupancies and conditions (fire walls, smoke and fire barriers, High Rise, Daycares, etc........ Not sure how you would handle an apartment complex when state law forbids us from entering a private dwelling for purposes of doing fire and life safety inspections. I can require anything from the code for a multi-family dwelling strucutre for the common and public areas. (state law for police search and seizure indicates an apartment is a private dwelling) NOt sure how you would be able to enter an apartment unit to inspect the fire door on the breezeway if I (the homeowner -a.k.a. king of my castle) did not want you to come into my dwelling unit.

 

[LGreene]

Not sure how you would handle an apartment complex when state law forbids us from entering a private dwelling for purposes of doing fire and life safety inspections.

Since the fire door inspection is the responsibility of the building owner or property manager and not intended to be done by the AHJ, would the same laws apply? Is the building owner / property manager allowed to enter an apartment with someone he has hired to inspect the fire doors, or to inspect the fire door himself?