By the time most of you read this it will be Thursday, but right now it’s Wordless Wednesday!
Sent in by Steve Turner of Precision Doors and Hardware…a fairly common but definitely not code-compliant retrofit:
Sent in by Steve Monroe of Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies…the sign does not make this ok! Anybody know why not?
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
I believe that the lock device needs to be a key-operated locking device.
I think it does not meet the one motion egress rule.
In reference to the the surface bolt, IBC 2003 1008.1.8.4. Manually operated flush bolts or surface are not permitted in a means of egress.the bolt requires extra efort to exit.
The sign covers key locked doors with certain restrictions only.
If I’m not mistaken, that overlapping strike is not allowed on fire exit doors. (but I’m not sure if these are fire rated doors anyway)
First and foremost is the slide bolt which locks the door. Note that the code addresses manually operated surface and flush bolts UBC 2009 1008.1.9.4 but these are used to immobilize the inactive leaf in pair – they do not lock the door. The intent of the slide bolt is to lock the door. And the code specific as to when exit doors can be locked see UBC 2009 1008.1.9.3. And this is also were the sign come in – note that the wording of the sign is correct.
But what has my attention is the way the rim device is latched over the “strike” plate in the face of the door. Another one of those clever solutions.
Saw this on a restaurant in the Berkshires two weeks ago:
If these doors were inspected by a competent fire marshal they would be red-flagged as it takes more than one action to egress the hall or building. Here is a designated fire exit in a theatre
Hi Ted –
I can’t see your photo but you can email it to me if you’d like – email@example.com.