# Bars Across Non-Required Exterior Doors



## texasbo (Aug 31, 2010)

I'd like to just get a quick show of hands from the members of this forum, because I value your opinions.

If an occupancy provides an additional exterior door that could be used for egress, but is not required means of egress, do you allow them to put bars (or chains, or key locks, etc) across the door to keep the door from being broken into?


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 31, 2010)

See Section 1008.1 Doors, in the `06 IBC:

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 :Next('./icod_ibc_2006f2_10_sec018_par001.htm')'>Section 1018.2.

*Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet*

*the requirements of this section.*

IMO, everything else kicks in.

.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 31, 2010)

No. Not if it can be seen as a door. If they want remove it or permenatly cover it where it can not be identified as a door then I am willing to listen and re-evaluate the means of egress.


----------



## cda (Aug 31, 2010)

is there an exit sign over it inside??


----------



## texasbo (Aug 31, 2010)

cda said:
			
		

> is there an exit sign over it inside??


No. It's just an extra exterior door.


----------



## cda (Aug 31, 2010)

maybe??? case by case??

and also does this go back to this thread???  ;;;;

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?2385-2006-1028.2-Maintenance-of-Means-of-Egress


----------



## texasbo (Aug 31, 2010)

cda said:
			
		

> maybe??? case by case??and also does this go back to this thread???  ;;;;
> 
> http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?2385-2006-1028.2-Maintenance-of-Means-of-Egress


Yes and no. I apparently missed that thread. It disturbs me, and I completely disagree with it. But even if we accept that the exits can be obstructed  outside of business hours, if it's not a required means of egress, can it be blocked during business hours.


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 31, 2010)

No! Not blocked and with an approved type of lock.     See Section

1008.1.8.3, # 2.

.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 31, 2010)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> No! Not blocked and with an approved type of lock.     See Section1008.1.8.3, # 2.
> 
> .


But 1008.1.8.3  is a sub paragraph of 1008.1 which is for means of egress doors.


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 31, 2010)

texasbo,

Please see my first post above.  Section 1008.1 requires it!

.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 31, 2010)

Globe Trekker: This isn't a means of egress door. 1008.1 is only for means of egress doors.


----------



## Frank (Aug 31, 2010)

Key part of 1008.1 ...doors provided for egress purposes shall...

Not all doors have to comply with 1008.1

If the door is not a required exit, does not have an exit sign, and is not intended to be used as a normal way to leave the building then it is not "provided for egress purposes" and does not have to comply with the lock and latch door swing etc provisions.  Signage "entrance only" or "not an exit" can clarify this for swinging doors.

Examples--

Entrance only doors that swing into the building.

Overhead doors as for loading docks and vehicle entrances which can be used for egress but are not intended as egress doors and cannot comply with egress door requirements.


----------



## Mech (Aug 31, 2010)

Put a sign on the door??? - NOT AN EXIT or NOT A MEANS OF EGRESS.


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 31, 2010)

texasbo originally stated:



> If an occupancy provides an additional exterior door *that could**be used for egress*, but is not required means of egress, do you allow them to put bars (or chains,
> 
> or key locks, etc) across the door to keep the door from being broken into?


Wouldn't this potential application fall under Section 1008.1 If not, then why not? I

understand that the extra door is not a MOE door, but texasbo asked if it WAS used an egress

door, is it required to not be blocked / locked?

IMO, even though the extra door is not a MOE door, it will not matter if people have to

use it as one in an emergency.

.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 31, 2010)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> texasbo originally stated: Wouldn't this potential application fall under Section 1008.1 If not, then why not? I
> 
> understand that the extra door is not a MOE door, but texasbo asked if it WAS used an egress
> 
> ...


That's exactly right, someone could use it to go outside of the building, but it's not required. By the way, as always, I really appreciate the input.


----------



## Mule (Aug 31, 2010)

texasbo said...If an occupancy provides an additional exterior door that *could be used for egress*,

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.

The definition of "Means of Egress" does not specify if a door is required or not.

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.*

Isn't this a door that "could" be used for egress as stated in the OP?

I would say it is required to meet the specifications of 1008.1


----------



## Yikes (Aug 31, 2010)

We had this situation at a local church building, where the architect had designed one more door than the owner really wanted or the code required.  The owner did not want to pay to remove the door and wall it in.  The fire chief and building official agreed that they could put a large "NOT AN EXIT" sign on each face of the door, just like Mech suggested above.

The church annually conducts exit drills (we're in earthquake county).   No one ever confuses this for an exit door.  Since they never enter through the door, they never default to it for exiting.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2010)

Thanks for all of the responses. I was playing devil's advocate with Globe Trekker; I actually agree with him, Mule and others who say that if additional doors are provided, they must comply.

Surprisingly, our fire marshal (who is a good code guy, by the way) disagrees. He says that if they want to put bars, chains, key locks, etc. on any door that's over and above required means of egress (whether it's a school, night club, etc.), then that's ok with them.

I think that's dangerous. In a panic situation, many people will choose the way they came in, but many will choose the door that's closest to them. If that door looks like an exit, but has been locked, it could be tragic. I feel that 1018.2 applies, but I guess if they just say "we're not providing this door for egress purposes", then that makes it ok...


----------



## Yankee (Sep 1, 2010)

Not provided for *egress purposes.* A door leading outside is not providing egress as defined in the code. If you were going to go down this slippery slope, then all doors leading out of the room even through through other spaces as permitted in an egress path by code would also need to be treated the same way as they might be "confused" as an egress door.


----------



## cda (Sep 1, 2010)

""Surprisingly, our fire marshal (who is a good code guy, by the way) disagrees. He says that if they want to put bars, chains, key locks, etc. on any door that's over and above required means of egress (whether it's a school, night club, etc.), then that's ok with them."""

maybe have him review the rhode island club fire, where they bail out through the windows, "not provided for egress purposes"


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Not provided for *egress purposes.* A door leading outside is not providing egress as defined in the code.


Actually the code defines "means of egress", not "egress". The definition of "means of egress" is general, it doesn't differentiate between "required" means of egress, and "means of egress".

1008.1 then goes on to say that "doors provided for egress purposes (note that it doesn't say required means of egress, just egress) in numbers greater than required...shall meet the requirements of this section". By this, the code implies that there is required means of egress, and non-required means of egress, and that they shall be treated the same, as far as doors go.

If I put a door in the back of my building so people can go outside of the building, it is an egress door (not a REQUIRED means of egress door), and by code, it has to comply with 1008. If I put the exact same door in the exact same place, and tell the building department it's for loading only, and not egress, then it doesn't have to comply. The code requirement can be manipulated by what the tenant tells the building department, regardless of how the door is used. *That's* the slippery slope.


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 1, 2010)

texasbo,

One solution would be to install a compliant type of latching mechanism ( i.e. - one operation

to open ),  or a panic bar and install a sign that says " NOT  AN  EXIT  ".

This would be compliant and still offer a ' non-MOE door ' for emergency purposes.

Also, I believe that as the BO, you can override the Fire Marshall if you believe that

a "high risk" element  is present.

.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2010)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> texasbo,One solution would be to install a compliant type of latching mechanism ( i.e. - one operation
> 
> to open ),  or a panic bar and install a sign that says " NOT  AN  EXIT  ".
> 
> ...


Thanks, and good points. The problem is that although I think he's wrong, I'm not convinced he's wrong, as far as the letter of the code goes. There is even stronger language in the Fire Code, and FD *IS *responsible for maintenance. That's the whole reason I came here; to get opinions from people that I respect. And as usual, some very smart people have very different opinions. Isn't it amazing that something that we take for granted and think is so simple such as doors can be controversial?


----------



## Yankee (Sep 1, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Actually the code defines "means of egress", not "egress". The definition of "means of egress" is general, it doesn't differentiate between "required" means of egress, and "means of egress". 1008.1 then goes on to say that "doors provided for egress purposes (note that it doesn't say required means of egress, just egress) in numbers greater than required...shall meet the requirements of this section". By this, the code implies that there is required means of egress, and non-required means of egress, and that they shall be treated the same, as far as doors go.
> 
> If I put a door in the back of my building so people can go outside of the building, it is an egress door (not a REQUIRED means of egress door), and by code, it has to comply with 1008. If I put the exact same door in the exact same place, and tell the building department it's for loading only, and not egress, then it doesn't have to comply. The code requirement can be manipulated by what the tenant tells the building department, regardless of how the door is used. *That's* the slippery slope.


1008.1 does in fact say "means of egress" as in "doors serving a means of egress system". the means of egress system is the defined means of egress, both the "required" egress and any "extra" defined egress, but not other doors not defined in a means of egress path.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> but not other doors not defined in a means of egress path.


Who says? The code doesn't say "other doors not defined in a means of egress path", it just says "doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required". Because "egress" isn't defined in the code, why are you assuming it has to be part of a "defined means of egress path"?

 In this case, egress purposes is just egress purposes.


----------



## north star (Sep 1, 2010)

** * **

Refer to Section 104.1 in the `06 IBC: "The building official is hereby authorized and

directed to enforce the provisions of this code. *The building official shall have the*

*authority to render **interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and*

*procedures **in order to clarify the **application of its provisions. *Such

interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and

purpose of this code.             Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect

of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code."

** * **


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 1, 2010)

If this is new construction or a remodel or addition the Fire Code and the Fire Marshel are not the final AHJ the Building Code and the BO are. Read IFC 102.1 thru 102.4 You are right it will be a maintenance issue for the FD to deal with so both of you being on the same page is best for the owner.


----------



## FM William Burns (Sep 1, 2010)

Don't know if I'm respected or not    but I agree with Yankee, GT and your FM.  The door in question is not intended/marked/designed as an exit and therefore may be locked against entry.  Personally, we would require signage to indicate "Not A Exit" and in application of the code, the intent for this door in question is nothing more than a "service door".  Regarding Warwick RI, the exit doors were identified as exits and if locked (can't remember off hand) were in violation of code.  The smoke development from the improper wall and ceiling covering contributed to visible accessability to MOE.  In human behavioral studies that contribute to why we require what we do for MOE; people will egress where they entered and only where accessibility is provided will they seek alternative egress routes.  Just my opinion and agree to dis-agree where applicable!


----------



## Yankee (Sep 1, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Who says? The code doesn't say "other doors not defined in a means of egress path", it just says "doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required". Because "egress" isn't defined in the code, why are you assuming it has to be part of a "defined means of egress path"?In this case, egress purposes is just egress purposes.


Who says . . .  well, that is my take on it because the wording is part and parcel of the paragraph which starts out with the words "Means of egress doors. . . ".

My take is that if they were discussing all OTHER doors not included in a defined means of egress system, they would say so and make another paragraph.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 1, 2010)

The back of every fast food restaraunt is a "service door" and definately not part of the required means of egrees but you would allow a "bar, chain or keyed lock" to be used to secure that door when it may be the quickest way out for an employee during a kitchen fire.



> One solution would be to install a compliant type of latching mechanism ( i.e. - one operation to open ), or a panic bar and install a sign that says " NOT AN EXIT ".


Agree 99% Why install a sign that says NOT AN EXIT if the door hardware will permit it to be used as one? Defies logic.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 1, 2010)

It isn't necessary to label "not an exit" unless there is a possibility that one CANNOT get out, as in, the door may sometimes be barred or chained or locked from the egress direction, or leads to a dead end or other space with no egress path.

Why do you say the rear "service door" is definitely NOT part of a means of egress? It very well might be?


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> My take is that if they were discussing all OTHER doors not included in a defined means of egress system, they would say so and make another paragraph.


Why make a separate paragraph when you can say it in a sentence: "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section".

Seriously, I do very much respect your opinion, as well as all of the others who have taken the time to respond to this topic.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary to label "not an exit" unless there is a possibility that one CANNOT get out, as in, the door may sometimes be barred or chained or locked from the egress direction, or leads to a dead end or other space with no egress path. Why do you say the rear "service door" is definitely NOT part of a means of egress? It very well might be?


Hold on Yankee; if your contention is that a non-required door doesn't have to comply at all, then why would you need to put any sign on it under any circumstances?

Also, please don't complicate an already complicated thread. The assumption in the example I'm asking about is that the rear exit is not required.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 1, 2010)

> Why do you say the rear "service door" is definitely NOT part of a means of egress? It very well might be?


Yankee I said "required means of egress" and made the assumption the "service" door in a fast food resturaunt would be located in the kitchen area, because as you know you can't exit through a kitchen but you have to have an exit from a kitchen which can be out the front or a non-required rear exit door


----------



## Yankee (Sep 1, 2010)

Well, you are not REQUIRED to put any sign on it. So if the rear "service" door is not a required exit, then there is another compliant egress exit path, and the door in question MAY be locked or chained. IF it is locked or chained many of us believe there should be a sign on it.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 1, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Yankee I said "required means of egress" and made the assumption the "service" door in a fast food resturaunt would be located in the kitchen area, because as you know you can't exit through a kitchen


the kitchen employees can exit from the kitchen


----------



## texasbo (Sep 1, 2010)

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Don't know if I'm respected or not    but I agree with Yankee, GT and your FM.  The door in question is not intended/marked/designed as an exit and therefore may be locked against entry.  Personally, we would require signage to indicate "Not A Exit" and in application of the code, the intent for this door in question is nothing more than a "service door".


First, your opinion is very much respected. Secondly, I understand why you would require the signage, but it is not required whatsoever in the code. In my opinion, that could lead to serious problems. By requiring the sign, you're acknowledging that you know people might try to use the door in an emergency situation. Yet at the same time you are allowing this non-required egress door to be locked. All of that concerns me, and it's not hard to visualize a hostile line of questioning in a court of law.

With that said, this thread shows that your interpretation is not unusual.


----------



## LGreene (Sep 2, 2010)

> texasbo:  Isn't it amazing that something that we take for granted and think is so simple such as doors can be controversial?


Most people think doors are simple but those of us who have to deal with them daily know better.  Their complexity is just under-appreciated by the rest of the world.  

This is a really interesting thread, and I appreciate everyone giving their input.  Someone mentioned signage a few posts up...I checked into the "No Exit" signage requirements a while back, and although it's not an IBC requirement, it is an NFPA 101 and OSHA requirement for places where those apply:  http://idighardware.com/2009/11/not-an-exit/

I'm not trying to complicate things further, just an FYI.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 2, 2010)

The reason for exit signs is to essentially designate the "required means of egress".  Just because it is an exterior door does not make it an exit or even part of the means of egress.  If that were the case, it would need an exit sign, tactile exit sign, exterior emergency lighting, possibly meet accessibility requirements, etc.

I agree with FM and yankee.  Plus, I think a "NOT AN EXIT" signage requirement should be added to the I-codes.

It has taken me years to get over the fire inspector mentality that an exterior door automagically makes it an exit.  It is hard enough to get building owners to maintain the stuff that is actually required...


----------



## cda (Sep 2, 2010)

found this looking for something else, wonder why the city got involved

http://www.dogpile.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fmidsouthrescue.tripod.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderfiles%2FMAVERICK_BARS.ppt&0=&1=0&4=24.173.70.100&5=24.173.70.100&9=936de2ff996b478eb76f97756c4acb01&10=1&11=info.dogpl&13=search&14=239138&15=main-title&17=10&18=3&19=0&20=6&21=4&22=P5rlczsMzgo%3D&23=0&40=qyaBwd8iuZ%2F9VFDMtyvBOA%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true

anyone know the brand of panic hardware with the built in security bar like used in wal mart????


----------



## texasbo (Sep 2, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> The reason for exit signs is to essentially designate the "required means of egress".  Just because it is an exterior door does not make it an exit or even part of the means of egress.  If that were the case, it would need an exit sign, tactile exit sign, exterior emergency lighting, possibly meet accessibility requirements, etc.I agree with FM and yankee.  Plus, I think a "NOT AN EXIT" signage requirement should be added to the I-codes.
> 
> It has taken me years to get over the fire inspector mentality that an exterior door automagically makes it an exit.  It is hard enough to get building owners to maintain the stuff that is actually required...


Again, nobody is saying it's a *required* means of egress, or "exit". And the code doesn't require exit signs , lighting and accessibility for non-required egress doors. It just says the doors themselves shall comply.

My contention is that if additional doors are provided for egress (NOT required egress), in numbers above those required by the code, then the doors have to comply with 1008. In my opinion, the code is quite clear about that. However, many people here do not agree. Maybe I'm wrong; that's the whole reason I wanted to hear from the forum members.

I agree with you about the signs. If the code said "if additional doors are provided that do not comply with this chapter, signage shall be placed on such doors stating "NOT AN EXIT", then I would not be making the arguments I'm making.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 2, 2010)

LGreene said:
			
		

> Most people think doors are simple but those of us who have to deal with them daily know better. Their complexity is just under-appreciated by the rest of the world. This is a really interesting thread, and I appreciate everyone giving their input. Someone mentioned signage a few posts up...I checked into the "No Exit" signage requirements a while back, and although it's not an IBC requirement, it is an NFPA 101 and OSHA requirement for places where those apply: http://idighardware.com/2009/11/not-an-exit/
> 
> I'm not trying to complicate things further, just an FYI.


Didn't know that, excellent, thank you~


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 2, 2010)

Since LGreene's post I wonder if the difference of opinions come from where we cut our teeth from, SBCCI, BOCA, UBC, NFPA 101. It has been an interesting post and I do not believe we will get a consensus on this one. To me a non-required door is just like any other non-required item, stairs, sprinklers, alarms when installed they have to meet code.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 2, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Since LGreene's post I wonder if the difference of opinions come from where we cut our teeth from, SBCCI, BOCA, UBC, NFPA 101. It has been an interesting post and I do not believe we will get a consensus on this one. To me a non-required door is just like any other non-required item, stairs, sprinklers, alarms when installed they have to meet code.


The same thing crossed my mind. I went back to UBC 1982, and the wording was same. I'd like to know what BOCA said.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 2, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Since LGreene's post I wonder if the difference of opinions come from where we cut our teeth from, SBCCI, BOCA, UBC, NFPA 101. It has been an interesting post and I do not believe we will get a consensus on this one. To me a non-required door is just like any other non-required item, stairs, sprinklers, alarms when installed they have to meet code.


Although the code items may differ between exterior doors (the "other" doors) and exterior doors that are part of a means of egress ("egress doors").


----------



## cda (Sep 2, 2010)

Have to look in the old ufc


----------



## Yankee (Sep 2, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> My contention is that if additional doors are provided for egress (NOT required egress), in numbers above those required by the code, then the doors have to comply with 1008. In my opinion, the code is quite clear about that. However, many people here do not agree. Maybe I'm wrong; that's the whole reason I wanted to hear from the forum members.


I agree if additional door are provided FOR EGRESS then the doors must comply with 1008.

I think the distinction here is that doors that lead outside are not "egress doors" under the code unless they are part of a required means of egress or are added in addition to the number of doors to the required egress and have egress paths associated with them.


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 2, 2010)

texasbo,

See what you started!       There is  N O T H I N G  simple on this forum or in the codes.

A room full of 10 people will usually yield 20 or more different viewpoints.   That's

usually where Section 104.1  in the IBC   &  IFC come in to play.      The B.O.  &  Fire

Chief / Fire Marshall make a [ code based, legally supported,

not-necessarily-common-sense ] determination and then apply it.

The reason that I suggested the panic hardware or  "1 motion" type lock  &

"NOT  AN  EXIT" sign was two-fold.   *1.*  It will allow the business owner to maintain

security, ...provide a stock delivery point and "MAYBE" a door that COULD be used

in an emergency,  and  *2.*  the "NOT  AN  EXIT" sign is a visible, legible, documented,

positive action to identify definitely that the door is NOT a required MOE.   This

"going above the minimum" goes a very long way in court also.

.


----------



## cda (Sep 2, 2010)

11.414 UFC 1988

said on the exterior a sign is required if there is storage blocking the door

"this door blocked"

but you cannot put the sign on a required exit or FD access


----------



## FM William Burns (Sep 2, 2010)

Signage



> In my opinion, that could lead to serious problems. By requiring the sign, you're acknowledging that you know people might try to use the door in an emergency situation. Yet at the same time you are allowing this non-required egress door to be locked.


TX, on the contrary. We acknowledge that the door is permitted by code to be locked, secured and that signage provides notice that the door may be subject to locking prohibiting use during an emergency event. From a legal standpoint the door is not required to part of the egress system and therefore should be indicated as such to prevent liability in the case it is used during an emergency. Without notification one may be exposed if someone tries to use it in an emergeny. And yes I’m a NFPA enforcer and this is the intent for the usage of the sign as referenced.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

^ I hear you FM Burns; for reasons I'm about to explain, did you grow up undr BOCA? I can only assume TJacobs and Yankee did.

I know I'm dragging this out, but I'm sure those who are not interested are avoiding this thread, and those who are interested, well, that's why you're reading this.

Anyway, I've been giving more thought to the different cultures of ICBO, BOCA, SBCCI, etc, and I think there may be something there.

Growing up under ICBO, we had an "exits" chapter. Pretty much everything was focused on "exits", and not components of "means of egress". Sec 3304(a), 1985 UBC said "This section shall apply to every EXIT door..." Emphasis on EXIT. Paragraph (k) Additional Doors "When additional doors are provided for EGRESS.. (exact same wording as current IBC)" It didn't say "when additional EXIT doors are provided."

So for better or worse, ICBO clearly distinguished between EXIT and EGRESS. 3304 applied to required EXIT doors, but also had a provision requiring doors to comply with 3304 even if they weren't required EXITS.

Because of this, as I progressed through my carreer as a young plans examiner, plan review manager, BO, and Development Director, I have never even considered that additional doors would not have to comply. I know many of my colleagues in Texas had the same interpretation. I would guess that many others under ICBO had the same interpretation as well.

If I remember correctly, BOCA had the different components of egress, very similar in form to todays IBC. In fact, regarding doors, it might have been the exact same wording as in the current code; using terms "egress" for both required and additional doors.

Therefore, I think my interpretation, and maybe some of the other old ICBO guys, is based on the difference in semantics between the ICBO and BOCA.

Does any of this make sense? Would anyone mind if we went back to the 1988 UBC, the code on which I started, and still often quote as gospel, because it's the only one I remember well?


----------



## Yankee (Sep 3, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> ^ . . . did you grow up undr BOCA? I can only assume TJacobs and Yankee did.


The "yankee" answer to the above sentance is  "not yet" : )

Otherwise, yes sure, historical perspective prevails.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 3, 2010)

1999 BOCA:

1017.1 General:

*The requirements of this section shall apply to all **doorways serving as a component or element of a means of egress*, except as provided for in Sections 1014.8, 1014.12.2, 1015.5.1, 1015.5.2 and 1015.6.1.

Bold and underline added by me. The bold section is the same wording as 1987 BOCA 812.1; before the comma after egress, 1987 BOCA added ..."from habitable and occupiable rooms; except...".


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> The "yankee" answer to the above sentance is  "not yet" : )Otherwise, yes sure, historical perspective prevails.


Yankee, TJacobs : Didn't BOCA also have very similar means of egress language as today's IBC (exit access, exit discharge, etc)?


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 3, 2010)

In the example given, if they wanted to replace the door with stationary storefront glazing, and the project otherwise had sufficient exiting without the door, you would not approve that?


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> In the example given, if they wanted to replace the door with stationary storefront glazing, and the project otherwise had sufficient exiting without the door, you would not approve that?


Of course I would approve it. Again, we are talking about non-required *DOORS* that are provided for egress. Not required means of egress, just egress. Storefront glazing is not a door, nor is it provided for egress. An overhead rolling door isn't provided for egress either, and I would approve that as well.

In my opinion, tboth he intent of the code, and the letter of the code is to make sure that if a door is provided for egress, then someone might attempt to use it in an emergency, and it must comply with all requirements of 1008. Someone isn't going to mistake storefront glazing for a door and try to open it.


----------



## Plans Approver (Sep 3, 2010)

This from the 2003 ICC (& 1996 BOCA) Interpretations book:

"Q: Is it mandatory for nonrequired doorways to contribute to the egress capacity of the room or space from which they lead?

A: No. The minimum required number of exits and exit access elements specified in Sections 1014.1 and 1018.1 provide an acceptable level of safety for the occupants. Although additional doorways are permitted, they are not specifically required to comply with all provisions of Chapter 10. Nonrequired doorways are to be constructed such that they serve their intended purpose without creating a hazard to the building occupants or general public. Accordingly, nonrequired doorways must not be identified as means of egress unless they fully comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 10."

Is it still valid?   Obviously, other interpretations are possible.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

But the question isn't whether they are required to contribute to egress capacity; one of the premises of this thread is that they're not. It's whether or not they can be locked, blocked, barricaded, etc.

Let me ask this: would you guys allow a non-means of egress door to swing out across a 29" drop to grade?


----------



## Plans Approver (Sep 3, 2010)

> But the question isn't whether they are required to contribute to egress capacity


You obviously didn't read the entire answer. *"The minimum required number of exits and exit access elements specified in Sections 1014.1 and 1018.1 provide an acceptable level of safety for the occupants. **Although additional doorways are permitted, they are not specifically required to comply with all provisions of Chapter 10.** Nonrequired doorways are to be constructed such that they serve their intended purpose without creating a hazard to the building occupants or general public. Accordingly, nonrequired doorways must not be identified as means of egress unless they fully comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 10."*

Now you moved the target by adding the 29" drop. This thread is getting ridiculous.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

Yes I did read the entire answer. You obviously didn't read the very first post in the thread. The question isn't whether the door has to comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 10, it's whether it has to comply with the provisions of 1008.

And no, the target isn't moved at all; it's a very pertinent question about compliance with 1008; the exact subject of this thread. I'd like your answer.

And Dan, there's no reason to get sh!tty with me; up to this point this has been a perfectly civilized and enlightening conversation, and your opinion is one of those that I value.


----------



## Mac (Sep 3, 2010)

To restate the premise, if non-required doors are barred, bolted, or barricaded, what code section would you cite to get the bars etc removed?


----------



## Plans Approver (Sep 3, 2010)

> And Dan, there's no reason to get sh!tty with me...


Sorry:cry:, didn't mean it that way. The part I thought was ridiculous (maybe the wrong word) was adding a 29" drop on the 3rd page of the thread. If that had been in the original post, we wouldn't be on the 3rd page. The answer would have been easy not only barricade, remove all hardware, screw it closed and cover with gyp. board as though it was never there from the inside.

I have read all of the posts from when your original post was the only one.

The interp I posted says that additional doors are permitted, but, must not be identified as exit doors. So by extension you can do almost anything to them except identify them (and use them) as exits including barricading, locking, installing signs such as "Not an EXIT", "Loading only - No step on other side", put storage and equipment in front of it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 3, 2010)

*Q: *Do the provisions of Section 1008.1 of the _International Building Code_, which addresses means of egress doors, apply to only those doors necessary to comply with the minimum requirements for the means of egress of a building or structure or from a specific room or space within a building or structure? 

*A: *No.* The provisions of 1008.1 only apply to those doors required for egress and** all other doors that are not required but marked as exit doors**. *

*So if it doesn't have an exit sign above it I guess you can lock em up and burn em up.  *


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

OK, picking back up.

Mac, as I've stated several times, I feel that the intent and letter of 1008.1 requires additional doors, that are not part of the required means of egress, but are provided for egress, must comply.

Dan - so you are saying that you would not allow this additional door to swing out over a 29" drop. So you would require some parts of 1008 to apply, but not all of it? How could you enforce it? What section would you cite? I'm not being silly; I agree with you; I wouldn't allow it either under 1008.1, just as I wouldn't allow this door to be locked, blocked or barricaded.

And by the way guys, since I started kicking this tarbaby, I've been doing a lot of internet research. It seems this has come up in enough jurisdictions that many have written interpretations, and I am beginning to think that's what is called for here.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> *Q: *Do the provisions of Section 1008.1 of the _International Building Code_, which addresses means of egress doors, apply to only those doors necessary to comply with the minimum requirements for the means of egress of a building or structure or from a specific room or space within a building or structure? *A: *No.* The provisions of 1008.1 only apply to those doors required for egress and** all other doors that are not required but marked as exit doors**. *
> 
> *So if it doesn't have an exit sign above it I guess you can lock em up and burn em up.  *


Where did this come from? Interpretation manual?


----------



## Yankee (Sep 3, 2010)

Mac said:
			
		

> To restate the premise, if non-required doors are barred, bolted, or barricaded, what code section would you cite to get the bars etc removed?


Very good question


----------



## FM William Burns (Sep 3, 2010)

Tx,

Cut my teeth on SBCCI and NFPA 101 before comming to BOCA land and now ICCville.  I hope you get through this but my opinion still stands, not required are permitted to be locked and in our jurisdiction, signed.

Have a safe and wonderful weekend all, I'll be at the Tigers game Monday if the casino allows me


----------



## Markl_AHC (Sep 3, 2010)

cda said:
			
		

> found this looking for something else, wonder why the city got involvedhttp://www.dogpile.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fmidsouthrescue.tripod.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderfiles%2FMAVERICK_BARS.ppt&0=&1=0&4=24.173.70.100&5=24.173.70.100&9=936de2ff996b478eb76f97756c4acb01&10=1&11=info.dogpl&13=search&14=239138&15=main-title&17=10&18=3&19=0&20=6&21=4&22=P5rlczsMzgo%3D&23=0&40=qyaBwd8iuZ%2F9VFDMtyvBOA%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true
> 
> anyone know the brand of panic hardware with the built in security bar like used in wal mart????


It always amazes me at what gets approved. Thanks for the link.

As to your question, I'll generalize to "big box" retailers. Here are two very typical brands:

http://www.arm-a-dor.com/index1.html

http://www.detex.com/exit-control-locks.aspx

An additional one which is usually not found in "big box" but does have many innovative security-driven exit hardware designs that would perform better and be far safer than those shown in your link:

http://www.securitech.com/high-security-exit-devices-overview.html


----------



## Yankee (Sep 3, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I feel that the intent and letter of 1008.1 requires additional doors, that are not part of the required means of egress, but are provided for egress, must comply.


They are not being provided for egress. This is the basic word I feel you are getting hung up on. A door may lead outside, but it is not an egress door under the code, and the common usage from Merium Webster can't turn it into one.

The question "reversed" still stands "To restate the premise, if non-required doors are barred, bolted, or barricaded, what code section would you cite to get the bars etc removed?"

and what is your answer to that?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 3, 2010)

Where did this come from? Interpretation manual? Yep

http://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/Codes_List.cfm?Committees_Id=1&chap_num=10


----------



## Yankee (Sep 3, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Where did this come from? Interpretation manual? Yephttp://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/Codes_List.cfm?Committees_Id=1&chap_num=10


There ya go "marked as exit doors" indicate that the door is a planned and compliant egress door which would include an egress path both interior and exterior to the building. If it is NOT a compliant egress door along a compliant egress path and it IS marked "EXIT" it is in violation of the code.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> They are not being provided for egress. This is the basic word I feel you are getting hung up on. A door may lead outside, but it is not an egress door under the code, and the common usage from Merium Webster can't turn it into one.The question "reversed" still stands "To restate the premise, if non-required doors are barred, bolted, or barricaded, what code section would you cite to get the bars etc removed?"
> 
> and what is your answer to that?


You're right - I am getting hung up on the word egress. I'm seeing egress as a door that's put in to allow people to egress the building (or space), even though it's not required. Others are seeing it only as a part of the required means of egress. My contention through these 4 pages, is that if it's part of the required means of egress, why would it even be necessary to have the "other doors" provision?

And the section I've referenced throughout this thread is 1008.1.

I do realize I'm in the minority here, however, and it's good to hear the other side.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 3, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> You're right - I am getting hung up on the word egress. I'm seeing egress as a door that's put in to allow people to egress the building (or space), even though it's not required. Others are seeing it only as a part of the required means of egress. My contention through these 4 pages, is that if it's part of the required means of egress, why would it even be necessary to have the "other doors" provision?And the section I've referenced throughout this thread is 1008.1.
> 
> I do realize I'm in the minority here, however, and it's good to hear the other side.


In my opinion, the "other doors" referenced in section 1008.1 is referring to doors that are compliant exit doors in the path of egress that are in addition to the minimum number of required compliant exit doors in the egress path.


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Sep 3, 2010)

We encourage folks to put shelving in front of non-egress doors or blinds to match windows or paper - something to camouflage the door from being interpreted as a required exit door.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 3, 2010)

I see a lot of exit doors that are not part of the required means of egress, but if they are marked as an exit they get the full treatment.  If they don't want to provide the full treatment, they can make it a "not an exit" door.


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 3, 2010)

Sooooooooooo, ...texasbo, did you get your "show of hands" that you

originally asked for?    :grin:

.


----------



## LGreene (Sep 3, 2010)

Who's going to eloquently sum this up so I can quote you on my blog?   

And how the heck do you make the big-smile smiley face?


----------



## peach (Sep 3, 2010)

Then fill it in as a wall.


----------



## D a v e W (Sep 4, 2010)

I agree with fire, here they handle everything after CofO.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 7, 2010)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Sooooooooooo, ...texasbo, did you get your "show of hands" that youoriginally asked for?    :grin:
> 
> .


I did, and I'm glad I asked the question. It's interesting how something I have always taken for granted is interpreted differently by many people. Maybe I'm like that contractor we all have dealt with, who's been "doin it that way for 25 years". Maybe I've been "doin' it wrong..."


----------



## Glennman CBO (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry I got into this late in the discussion.

The way I see it is "doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section", are doors that are intended for egress, but are beyond the required # of exits. If the door is not "intended" for egress (by design or purpose) then it is not required to comply. Just because someone "could use it for egress" doesn't mean it is _intended_ for egress purposes. If extra egress doors are added, and are _intended_ for egress purposes, these must comply, IMHO.


----------

