• 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.

Testing Delayed Egress Locks

LGreene

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,165
Location
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
This morning a facility manager asked me if there was a code requirement for the frequency of testing a delayed egress lock. I did some research, and NFPA 72 does require annual testing for "door unlocking" as part of the requirements for emergency control functions.

I answered the question on my blog, but because I'm not the familiar with NFPA 72 or fire alarms in general, I would love any feedback you might have.

http://idighardware.com/2012/08/qa-testing-delayed-egress-locks/
 
Lori, Good article. I only have one persnickity comment. The latest version of a reference standard doesn't always apply. The 2009 IFC references the 2007 NFPA 72. It looks like tables 10.4.2.2 & 10.4.4 in the 2007 edition have the same requirement you cited. To complicate things further, different jurisdictions have adopted different editions of the IFC, and many use NFPA 101 instead of the IFC. It never hurts to add a disclaimer that codes vary by jurisdiction when giving code opinions.
 
Paul Sweet said:
Lori, Good article. I only have one persnickity comment. The latest version of a reference standard doesn't always apply. The 2009 IFC references the 2007 NFPA 72. It looks like tables 10.4.2.2 & 10.4.4 in the 2007 edition have the same requirement you cited. To complicate things further, different jurisdictions have adopted different editions of the IFC, and many use NFPA 101 instead of the IFC. It never hurts to add a disclaimer that codes vary by jurisdiction when giving code opinions.
Thanks Paul. I did mention why I used the quote from the 2010 edition ("There were some changes in the 2010 edition relative to this question, so I used that edition in my research.") and I also mentioned local requirements at the end, but I will add the 2007 info and try to make it more clear that this may not apply to all jurisdictions. I'm more careful about editions when there is a major difference between them. I appreciate the feedback!
 
Back
Top