Mercantile Egress

[LGreene]

Someone just asked me this 2-part question and I told him I'd post it here to get feedback from code officials or anyone else with an opinion.

On a mercantile occupancy, the main entrance doors are allowed to have key-operated locks as long as certain criteria are met. Here's the text from the 2009 IBC, section 1008.1.9.3:

2. In buildings in occupancy Group A having an occupant load of 300 or less, Groups B, F, M and S, and in places of religious worship, the main exterior door or doors are permitted to be equipped with key-operated locking devices from the egress side provided:

2.1. The locking device is readily distinguishable as locked;

2.2. A readily visible durable sign is posted on the egress side on or adjacent to the door stating: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN BUILDING IS OCCUPIED. The sign shall be in letters 1 inch (25 mm) high on a contrasting background; and

2.3. The use of the key-operated locking device is revokable by the building official for due cause.

Part 1) Do you typically allow this application? Do you have any reservations about doing so, or locations where you wouldn't allow it? What types of locking devices would you accept? Would a padlock be acceptable?

Part 2) On the rear door in a mercantile occupancy, would you allow the door to be equipped with a chain or burglar bar when the store is not occupied, for additional security after-hours?

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[cda]

1. yes

no

normaly key operated device

no

2. some people say yes some say no, depends on ahj

 

[mtlogcabin]

1. yes

not until the Wal-Mart super 24 hour store opened 2 weeks ago and I found out they lock the main doors in the grocery entrance at 11pm. It would be ok if they just shut the power off but the doors are locked tight. Its a "security" issue. It is going to be fun :wink:

normaly key operated device

no

2. no

 

[fatboy]

I think that's a five part question LGreene!

1) Yes-No-locking device is readily distinguishable as locked-No

2) No

 

[Gene Boecker]

#1 is legal under the code. I'm not sure how the AHJ would refuse it.

#2 is not allowed. In no case would a chain ever be acceptable since it requires an unlocking by a key someone has who may be away on vacation. A bugler bar or some other type of manual release device, although not allowed by code, allows for the added security demanded and is capable of being removed quickly in an emergency. I don't get heartburn over that although I could never offer a client that as an option due to the code language. What they do, however, after the C of O is their business and risk.

 

[FM William Burns]

Part 1: (a) Yes; (b) No; © Accessable or Distinguishable and (d) Never

Part 2: No (typically) but have approved at heights of not greater than 3' AFF in some occupancies due to security needs.

 

[FredK]

1. Yes

2. No

 

[LGreene]

Fatboy: "I think that's a five part question LGreene!"

I was thinking the same thing when I was writing it! I should have called it a 2-door question.

Thanks everyone!

 

[peach]

M occupancies sometimes use chains on the egress doors.

Those doors are also the ingress for firefighters.. so .. well.. no .. there's that whole 150' thing..

 

[Builder Bob]

The big question comes form section 1007 - Accessibility. If two exits are required then they BOTH must be accessible - that means not locks or knobs that require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist to operate.

Don't know of a single chain or security bar that meets those criterias.

Assuming new construction - because until the 2006 IBC, an means of egress was not allowed thru storage -----

1007.1

Where more than one means of egress is required by Section 1015.1 or 1019.1 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by

not less than two accessible means of egress.

1008.1.8.1 Hardware. Door handles, pulls, latches, locks and other operating devices on doors required to be accessible by Chapter 11 shall not require tight grasping,

tight pinching or twisting of the wrist to operate

 

[LGreene]

Builder Bob: The big question comes form section 1007 - Accessibility.

I'm going to upgrade this to a 6-part question.

Chapter 11 of the IBC refers to ICC/ANSI A117.1 as the accessibility standard. In paragraph 404.2.6 of A117.1, it says that locks used only for security purposes and not normal operation are permitted in any location. In my opinion, this refers to the mounting height, but I'd love to hear everyone's take on this. In my opinion, it's ambiguous, and by allowing "security" locks at any height, those doors are no longer accessible when the lock is engaged.

Here's the whole paragraph for reference:

"404.2.6 Door Hardware. Handles, pulls, latches, locks, and other operable parts on accessible doors shall have a shape that is easy to grasp with one hand and does not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate. Operable parts of such hardware shall be 34 inches minimum and 48 inches maximum above the floor. Where sliding doors are in the fully open position, operating hardware shall be exposed and usable from both sides.

Exception: Locks used only for security purposes and not used for normal operation are permitted in any location."

 

[fatboy]

I agree with you, it is only referencing the accessible aspect..........

 

[Builder Bob]

Except for one problem, the code overrides the referenced standards..... The IBC does not contain any language for the exception stated in the ANSI Standard.

Thus because of IBC section 102.4, the exception of ANSI is not applicable.

102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards

referenced in this code shall be considered part of the

requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such

reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this

code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this

code shall apply.

 

[fatboy]

And where I was thinking...........

Where, in any specific case, different sections

of this code specify different materials, methods of construction

​

or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.

 

[peach]

for security purposes only and not normal operation means it's not a required egress door. (Like a door adjacent to a loading dock)

 

[Builder Bob]

If it is not required, don't put an exit light over it......

However, the conversation was about general guidelines, several assumptions are being made -

For example, a strip mall where the tenant space(s) are large enough to require 2 exits.......and only two are provided.

General discussions are good for what they are - general guidance.

Specific applications with have to meet the guidelines of the AHJ.

The information presented is from several plan review issues that arose while I was performing commercial plan reviews and is often overlooked.