• 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.

Slammer doors

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
3,315
Do "slammers" need to be self-latching? 2018 IBC 3006.3 #3 has the slammer option, but don't indicate or reference any section that would require a latching mechanism or hardware requirements, other than for free egress (3002.6). It would seem, that since both #1 as a fire partition would require it, and #2 specifically references a section that requires it, that the "additional doors" would be similarly treated. But, there is no direction that the doors need to be fire rated, or even smoke or leakage rated if they have a bottom seal (this puzzles me a little as well). So my take is, they can be a non-rated door with a bottom seal, or a leakage tested door without a bottom seal, but can be free swinging with no hardware on the inside. Any thoughts?
 
3006.3 Hoistway Opening Protection

Where Section 3006.2 requires protection of the elevator hoistway door opening, the protection shall be provided by one of the following:
  1. An enclosed elevator lobby shall be provided at each floor to separate the elevator hoistway shaft enclosure doors from each floor by fire partitions in accordance with Section 708. In addition, doors protecting openings in the elevator lobby enclosure walls shall comply with Section 716.2.2.1 as required for corridor walls. Penetrations of the enclosed elevator lobby by ducts and air transfer openings shall be protected as required for corridors in accordance with Section 717.5.4.1.
  2. An enclosed elevator lobby shall be provided at each floor to separate the elevator hoistway shaft enclosure doors from each floor by smoke partitions in accordance with Section 710 where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2. In addition, doors protecting openings in the smoke partitions shall comply with Sections 710.5.2.2, 710.5.2.3 and 716.2.6.1. Penetrations of the enclosed elevator lobby by ducts and air transfer openings shall be protected as required for corridors in accordance with Section 717.5.4.1.
  3. Additional doors shall be provided at each elevator hoistway door opening in accordance with Section 3002.6. Such door shall comply with the smoke and draft control door assembly requirements in Section 716.2.2.1.1 when tested in accordance with UL 1784 without an artificial bottom seal.
  4. The elevator hoistway shall be pressurized in accordance with Section 909.21.
 
Not my area but I think if you look at 716,,,, I am thinking they have to latch.

plus

1020.6 Corridor Continuity

Fire-resistance-rated corridors shall be continuous from the point of entry to an exit, and shall not be interrupted by intervening rooms. Where the path of egress travel within a fire-resistance-rated corridor to the exit includes travel along unenclosed exit access stairways or ramps, the fire-resistance rating shall be continuous for the length of the stairway or ramp and for the length of the connecting corridor on the adjacent floor leading to the exit.


Exceptions:
  1. Foyers, lobbies or reception rooms constructed as required for corridors shall not be construed as intervening rooms.
  2. Enclosed elevator lobbies as permitted by Item 1 of Section 1016.2 shall not be construed as intervening rooms.
 
Last edited:
I would normally agree, but if using option #2, the doors appear to not be required to be fire rated, only smoke partitions. Option #2 specifically references 716.2.6.1, which requires the self-latching. Option #3 does not have the same reference, and doesn't appear to have the same strong language about being smoke partitions. Not sure why, but option 3 appears to be a lower threshold, and can be used with or without sprinklers.
 
It looks like 3006.2 requires the door to meet 762.2.2.1, Smoke and Draft Control, and be tested to UL 1784. I would imagine that for a door to pass that test it would have to have a latch.
 
These have latch

Does that count??
 

Attachments

  • B84DC9EB-5B36-406F-A640-41B1820BDE2D.jpeg
    B84DC9EB-5B36-406F-A640-41B1820BDE2D.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 10
  • 4468B246-8A09-4CC3-986F-3E637F0EE44C.jpeg
    4468B246-8A09-4CC3-986F-3E637F0EE44C.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 11
CDA, the photos look like they don't latch, just a push and they open. Unless I am missing it...it looks like they have smoke seals and closers, with no bottom seal.
 
Sifu said:
CDA, the photos look like they don't latch, just a push and they open. Unless I am missing it...it looks like they have smoke seals and closers, with no bottom seal.
Click to expand...


There is a latch at the top

and maybe the bottom
 
They sure look like they don't have latches. I agree with CDA, this is a question for the expert:
idighardware.com

Elevator Hoistway Doors - I Dig Hardware - Answers to your door, hardware, and code questions from Allegion's Lori Greene.

I Dig Hardware - Answers to your door, hardware, and code questions from Allegion's Lori Greene. | Elevator Hoistway Doors | | I just saw these doors in a hotel, so it seems like a good time to write about the requirements for doors at an elevator hoistway.
idighardware.com idighardware.com
Lori's article doesn't address latches specifically but the photo in the article shows latches.
 
I saw Lori's article, but didn't find an answer. Hoping she might chime in. I read UL 1784, there are a couple of places that say "when incorporating a latching mechanism", and one that speaks to measuring the closing force needed to latch the door, but no black and white language indicating it is a required element of the test. My take would be, based on the code language and the lack of definitive 1784 language, is that if the door, frame and gasketing passes (complete door assembly, as specified in the standard) the test, it must be installed as tested. So if it passed without a latching mechanism then it would be permitted. Whether a door can pass a test that incorporates a pressure differential, that has to be tested from both sides, without a latch is another story. But that is only my opinion, sure hope somebody else can either validate it or knock it down.

This is as close as it gets to "requiring" a latching mechanism. Is that enough?
1628601637718.png
 
This from the commentary:
Still no language other than easily openable.

These doors must meet two requirements.
First, they must be easily opened in accordance with
Section 3002.6. This ensures that if the doors do
close, they can be opened by someone who arrives
at that level on the elevator, such as fire department
personnel. This is very important if the doors are horizontal
power-operated doors, such as those in Section
1010.1.4.3. Section 3002.6 states that the doors
shall be readily openable from the car side without a
key, tool, special knowledge or effort. The second
requirement is the testing of the additional door or
doors. They must be tested in accordance with UL
1784. This test is titled “Air Leakage Tests of Door
Assemblies.” This test does not provide a fire-resistance
rating for the door. It also has no failure criteria
as it only measures the leakage rate. The leakage
rate for smoke and draft control doors in Section
716.2.2.1.1 is a maximum of 3.0 cubic feet per minute
per square foot of door opening at 0.10 inch of water
column pressure. It is assumed that they must meet
the leakage rate requirements in Section 716.2.2.1.1
and they must be identified as smoke and draft control
doors in accordance with Section 716.2.9.3.
 
The latch
 

Attachments

  • 354C840E-63F7-45E0-BF98-A7B41C3A92CC.jpeg
    354C840E-63F7-45E0-BF98-A7B41C3A92CC.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 7
  • B54D2708-ED89-4669-946F-5FBFC04AB2D2.jpeg
    B54D2708-ED89-4669-946F-5FBFC04AB2D2.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 8
Sorry to jump in late...I've been sick but luckily I just received a negative Covid test. I can't find a specific requirement for latching hardware on these doors. As far as I know, UL 1784 would not require a latch. If the doors were required to be fire rated, that would bring in a latching requirement. It's an interesting one, because if the #2 option under 3006.3 was used instead of the #3 option, the elevator lobby doors would require positive latching hardware because of the reference to 716.2.6.1. Why would doors in the elevator lobby smoke partitions require positive latching, but doors at the hoistway as an alternative to the elevator lobby not require positive latching?
 
L G

Thanks, hope you are feeling better, that Door to the Forehead, can get you down.
 
LGreene said:
Sorry to jump in late...I've been sick but luckily I just received a negative Covid test. I can't find a specific requirement for latching hardware on these doors. As far as I know, UL 1784 would not require a latch. If the doors were required to be fire rated, that would bring in a latching requirement. It's an interesting one, because if the #2 option under 3006.3 was used instead of the #3 option, the elevator lobby doors would require positive latching hardware because of the reference to 716.2.6.1. Why would doors in the elevator lobby smoke partitions require positive latching, but doors at the hoistway as an alternative to the elevator lobby not require positive latching?
Click to expand...
EXACTLY my question, and why I am conflicted. It makes no sense to me. BTW, I use your website often, a wealth of info and much appreciated. I figured if the answer wasn't on there it wasn't a slam dunk.
 
I’m curious if anyone has come across updated requirements or better solutions since then. Have there been any changes in enforcement or interpretation that have made things easier or more complicated?

Also, has anyone tested different hardware options that hold up well over time without causing operational issues? Would love to hear any new insights or experiences.
 
And I've personally dealt with similar issues before, and one simple but effective solution is using anti door slam hinges. They help control the speed and force of the door closing, which reduces the impact that causes the loud noise and potential damage. Some models even allow you to adjust the resistance to get the exact level of control needed for the door's weight and usage frequency.
 
Thamrice said:
And I've personally dealt with similar issues before, and one simple but effective solution is using anti door slam hinges. They help control the speed and force of the door closing, which reduces the impact that causes the loud noise and potential damage. Some models even allow you to adjust the resistance to get the exact level of control needed for the door's weight and usage frequency.
Click to expand...
Waterson makes spring hinges that can control closing speed and force. They aren’t cheap, but as spring hinges they don’t trigger ADA strike clearances on the push side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top