• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Panic Hardware

TJacobs said:
2006 IBC:MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

1008.1.9 Panic and fire exit hardware.

Where panic and fire exit hardware is installed, it shall comply with the following:

1. The actuating portion of the releasing device shall extend at least one-half of the door leaf width.

2. The maximum unlatching force shall not exceed 15 pounds (67 N).

Each door in a means of egress from a Group A or E occupancy having an occupant load of 50 or more and any Group H occupancy shall not be provided with a latch or lock unless it is panic hardware or fire exit hardware.

Exception: A main exit of a Group A occupancy in compliance with Section 1008.1.8.3, Item 2.

What is unclear about the text? Any room or space? 50 or more? Each door? It is not just the exit door, it is all doors in the means of egress from rooms or spaces with 50 or more occupants. Period. No interp necessary.
Click to expand...
Doors which are not designated as components of the exit access are not components of the means of egress.

By your logic, if there is a closet in an assembly space with fifty or more occupants it cannot be locked and must have panic hardware.

Interpretation may not be necessary, but a modicum of common sense is.
 
But a closet door isn't a "door provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code". It's a closet door. "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by code" have to comply. And the code says "egress", not "required egress". He says innocently, then ducks and walks briskly away.
 
Are the doors provided for egress purposes, or for aesthetics, or for light and ventilation purposes, or for loading/unloading purposes?

If there is even a hint they are provided for egress purposes, I agree.

I suggest a bank of french doors are provided for aesthetic purposes. If you opened the doors and there was a 2' wide alley on the other side, are they for egress purposes?
 
LGreene, if you are looking for good information to put in your blog, or a handy checklist to give to customers, might I suggest: "Be sure to check with your local building department"?
 
I agree with Tim and Brudgers and whoever else might be on that same line....if it doesn't look like an exit and isn't required to be an exit....no panic hardware...JM2cents But I can see where the differing opinions apply...It will be handled differently in diferent places, maybe a NOT AN EXIT SIGN, maybe getting panics and proper swing, whatever else...
 
So along this line of discussion the attached floor plan depicts a lobby with attached building wings. The lobby also serves an assembly area for up to 300 people. The lobby is capable of being used as an assembly. Original design plans listed it as both an A-2.1 and an A-3. The lobby is also an atrium serving three floors. The U shape raps around an exterior area with many very large trees, and can not be used for exiting, etc. The exit doors are marked with the arrows pointing outward. Only the exits have panic hardware. The rest of the doors were designed in so the whole area can be opened up for fresh air.

View attachment 350

View attachment 350

/monthly_2011_01/572953be04214_LobbywithExitsandotherdoors.jpg.2d17e6fe02c690a86b683d81ca4b580b.jpg
 
1008.1 Doors.

Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1017.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.

Means of egress doors shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors. Mirrors or similar reflecting materials shall not be used on means of egress doors. Means of egress doors shall not be concealed by curtains, drapes, decorations or similar materials.

Again...IF they are clearly marked....exits and not exits...I do not see where I wouldn't have to allow it...some other concerns in that particular situation might be assembly main exit/entrance, and distribution of remaining doors. Basically think of the (extra) doors as operable windows...you could go out them...but you are not supposed to...
 
Well, this is one of the best examples I've seen to illustrate this controversy.

Plenty of required exits, but in terms of the total number of doors, the required exits are a very small percentage.

So let's say that all of these doors had key locks on them except the required exits.

Yes, the required exits will have exit signs, but people will still have to essentially "hunt" for an exit that works.

And we all know that in a fire situation, unless someone is very close to the door they entered the building through, if they are 5' away from a glazed storefront door, with grass and trees on the other side, they are going to try to use that door. They are not going to start looking around the large space for one of the 11 out of 79 doors that are "required" exits.

Again, personally, I've somewhat changed my opinion and don't require every door to comply, but examples like this challenge my convictions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The architects wil usually make the doors comply when they are faced with the prospect of putting 79 "ugly" not an exit signs......or don't call them doors...call them windows, and make them meet those requirements...
 
steveray said:
The architects wil usually make the doors comply when they are faced with the prospect of putting 79 "ugly" not an exit signs......or don't call them doors...call them windows, and make them meet those requirements...
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is nothing in the code that requires "not an exit" sign.

In the myriad debates we've had about this in the past, some members have said they have adopted an amendment to require them, and you and others in this thread have indicated they might be a good idea. I don't disagree. But the code as written doesn't require them.
 
texasbo: LGreene, if you are looking for good information to put in your blog, or a handy checklist to give to customers, might I suggest: "Be sure to check with your local building department"?
Click to expand...
My question wasn't relative to a specific blog post or project, just for general understanding of the requirements. I always recommend contacting the local building department if there's something questionable, but a hardware consultant can't give that answer every time there's a door affected by codes. When we look at the plans, we have to know what to do for egress, fire, accessibility, etc. We also have to tie in security requirements, aesthetics, owners' standards, and keep it all code-compliant. If there's something we're not sure of or isn't clearly addressed in the codes, we recommend that the architect talk to the code consultant and/or the building department, but we need to be able to address most scenarios in order to specify the hardware. That's why I come to this board, so I can learn about how the code requirements are interpreted.

FyrBldgGuy - That's a GREAT example. I can't imagine getting an architect to agree to having me specify panic hardware on all of those doors, and the egress path beyond the non-exit-doors may not be properly maintained so do you really want people using them? I'm in the middle of a snowstorm so I'm looking at it from that perspective. Most architects would want double-cylinder deadlocks there so the facility department has control of the doors, and I think the code consultants that we usually work on projects with would agree that it would be acceptable since those doors are not required exits. Obviously the required exits would have panic hardware and exit signs. The IBC doesn't require "not an exit" signage, right? So as long as the hardware consultant didn't do something dumb like make the non-exit doors look like the exit doors (ex. use Blumcraft tubular panics on the exits and matching tubular deadlocks on the non-exits), isn't that ok? (Don't worry, I don't expect everyone to agree. :) )
 
LGreene said:
(Don't worry, I don't expect everyone to agree. :) )
Click to expand...
Don't worry, they don't.

Some of us (like me) don't even have the same opinion about this particular subject from day to day...

In my personal opinion, the example makes a case FOR requiring every door to comply. There is nothing in the code that says you can't make non-exit doors look like exit doors. In fact from an aesthetic perspective, it's very likely that the architect would want to maintain a uniform repetition of fenestration details around this open space.

There is nothing to say that the exit doors couldn't be glazed, with a semi recessed panic in the rail, and the non exit doors would be glazed, have the exact same rail, and be locked. The only difference would be an exit sign over the 11 "chosen doors".

With all that said, I'm still reluctantly agreeing that the chosen doors are the only ones that have to comply with 1008.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are some more details: all of the "non-exit" doors had door handles and deadbolts. Some of the time they are unlocked and some of the time they are locked. I recently told them to remove all of the door handles on the "non-exit" doors and told them to paint a six inch white line across the glass for these doors and a white sign "Exit" on the exit doors. The lobby has held events up to 2500 people.

View attachment 351

View attachment 351

/monthly_2011_01/572953be085e1_AccessibleLocations003.jpg.25a3bd74ba0e604282ecfcc89c6328ed.jpg
 
texasbo said:
But a closet door isn't a "door provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code". It's a closet door. "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by code" have to comply. And the code says "egress", not "required egress". He says innocently, then ducks and walks briskly away.
Click to expand...
The french doors aren't provided for egress purposes either.

The intent of the section of code which you cite is to require both doors of a pair to have panic hardware when one only one door is required to meet the code.
 
texasbo said:
Yes, the required exits will have exit signs, but people will still have to essentially "hunt" for an exit that works.
Click to expand...
Replace the additional doors with fixed glass windows having the same dimensions. What's the difference?
 
Yeah, yeah. They are doors. Two differences; they don't have exit signs, and they are locked. People would naturally go to them in a panic situation thinking they were exits.

I'm with you; it's just not as black and white to me as it is to some.

I would love to see a "not an exit" provision added.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top