Printed from the blog of Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI
Email:, Blog: or

Aug 03 2016

WW: Barricade Bolt

Category: School Security,Wordless WednesdayLori @ 12:55 am Comments (19)

Thank you to all who took the time to wish me happy birthday on Monday!  One more year until the Big 5-0!  (eek!) 


I received these photos from Guardian Fire Testing.  The bolts have been installed on existing fire-rated doors in a school, and Guardian was asked to relabel these fire door assemblies.  Note that the doors already had classroom security locks.

What say you?

Classroom Surface Bolt

Classroom Bolt 1

In case you’re just tuning in, these bolts do not meet the model code requirements for classroom doors, but these particular doors are in Ohio, where a state code modification allows temporary locking devices if certain criteria are met.  All products used as part of a fire door assembly are required to be listed for that purpose, but Guardian is being asked to decide whether non-listed products will negatively impact the performance of the fire door.

You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Recent Posts

19 Responses to “WW: Barricade Bolt”

  1. David Snell, AHC says:

    Sure it’s going to impact the label. What if a teacher or a student puts the bolt in while the door is open. It will then not latch which is against fire rating code.

  2. Evan says:

    My understanding is that if the combination was not tested, it’s not rated. So unless the manufacturers of these devices pays for UL Fire Testing, it would void the fire rating of the door.

  3. Ed Dueppen says:

    I understand this is a bit off-topic, but unless that is security glazing in the door lite, the hardware will not provide much security.

  4. Jerry Richmond, AHC/CDC says:

    Absolutely not! All of these add-on “gimmick” products should be banned. So someone took a surface bolt, dipped the end in red vinyl coating and magically thinks this makes it suitable for a fire door use and re-inspection? Give me a break!

  5. Harry says:

    I’d say it would be a no go as it hinders egress. Isn’t applying film or etching of fireglass a no no as well?

  6. Marcus Muirhead says:

    I don’t think this is a very good idea. I could be wrong, but by taking the time to fool around with all these high-tech slide bolts, they might not have enough time to chain and padlock all the gym doors and exterior exits.
    Honest-to-Pete, haven’t any of these people heard of the Victoria Hall Stampede? Or the Iroquois Theater Fire? How many perished in the Hartford Circus Fire? And there was hardly anything stopping people from getting out of that except panic and confusion and stampeding people. There are many, many terrible, tragic events that can be used as a guide to how people act in such situations. Not only that, far more people have perished in fires that have been shot.
    These Ohio politicians need to listen to a qualified adult who knows the business of locking a place down and emergency egress… Are they tight-fisted or obtuse? If I see one more jerry rigged, Rube Goldberg device designed to replace real hardware for pennies on the dollar, I’m going to lose my lunch.

  7. BobK says:

    It already has an intruder function lock on the door. Don’t they trust it? And those functions have NOT gotten anyone Killed or caused any deaths related to egress situations.

  8. Terry Crump, FDAI says:

    I have two questions.
    If the photo is from the classroom side–I might be missing something–but why is there a keyed cylinder on the lock? Shouldn’t that inside lever always be unlocked for immediate egress?
    And…How did Guardian Fire Testing respond?

    • Lori says:

      Hi Terry –

      I’m not sure what Guardian or the AHJ decided, but the reason for the key cylinder on the inside is because the door has a classroom security function lockset. The interior cylinder can be used to lock the outside lever without opening the door. The inside lever is always unlocked for free egress.

      – Lori

  9. Rich says:

    Just the above reasons are enough to say no, but what about two actions to get out as well. Hopefully Guardian says NO!!! (Red, Bold, Underlined, 72 font) and walks away from the liability of it.

    Lori, next year you just need to start with the creative counting. forty eight, forty nine, forty through, which can be a valid number for several years.

  10. Ryan Bradley says:

    I did not expect to see schools or institutions with existing intruder function locks applying these cobbled solutions. As shared spaces grow more and more common, keyed interior intruder function locks may be considered too problematic. Using a lock with a button on the inside invites student practical jokes but eliminates finding a key during an intruder alert to lock the outside lever.

  11. Roger Piane says:

    What about NFPA80 auxiliary Hardware cannot impede the door from closing and latching. I would ask who takes responsibility for the doors not latching during a fire event. People will get lax and leave the door locked then use the bolt to keep the door unlatched.

  12. Nolan Thrope says:

    I think the issue is the inside key. In crisis the teacher will fumble with the key, she needs to find the key etc… “Classroom Security” locks were a reaction to Columbine. “Columbine” or “Intruder” locks.
    I have seen a trend to schools using an inside pushbutton instead of a key, dormitory function to prevent against lock outs. I have a school using this in a mortise lock as well, an L9056 with indicator and inside turn.

    I understand that as hardware people we like to sell cylinders. We’d rather sell 2 cylinders/door. I prefer to sell the better solution.

  13. Glenn Younger says:

    Not a fan of this dumb idea. But to play devils advocate, here is the most basic question:
    Assume the bolt is no where near the door,
    Are the 4 screw holes and 2 small brackets enough to void the fire door label?

    • Lori says:

      This is a great question and I don’t have a definitive answer. You could make the argument that a lot of non-listed products might not affect a fire door’s performance…like hardware protectors, door cords, coat hooks…I don’t see in NFPA 80 where it says that every single piece and part needs to be listed for use on a fire door assembly, but UL, Intertek, and NFPA have all told me that everything has to be listed. Where do you draw the line on what really needs to be listed and what probably won’t affect the performance of the assembly?

      – Lori

  14. Bill Cushman says:

    This just makes me Angry. We’ve made too many great strides for us to go backwards to the dark ages. This “sideways mounted surface bolt” is a smack in the face to all of the folks in our industry who have worked so hard to maintain a level of professionalism in their work.

  15. Dave Matas says:

    Having the classroom secure lock with the labeled rose is the safest, most secure “dummy proof” hardware out there. insert key and turn left to lock and right to unlock.
    It should become the industry standard for schools and other building where intruder security is an issue.
    Oh, wait, they have that! get rid of the surface bolt.

  16. Joe Hendry says:

    This is one of the worst designs yet. Easily accessible to the threat, unable to be removed by admin or law enforcement (well maybe, if the window is able to be smashed in, which defeats the purpose of the device,and requires fine motor skills to install and remove. Why wouldn’t you just install a thumb turn dead bolt? Also, doesn’t this ruin the fire rating on the door?

    • Lori says:

      Hi Joe –

      In Ohio, where the law allows classroom barricade devices, a thumbturn deadbolt would not be allowed because the Ohio code language only allows temporary locking devices that are not permanently installed on the door. I’ve been wondering if it was written that way to get around the accessibility requirements that apply to operable hardware.

      Regarding the fire door question…each component of a fire door assembly is supposed to be listed for use on a fire door. This is the rule that hardware suppliers must comply with, but the Ohio AHJs must not be requiring this because none of these devices are listed.

      – Lori

Leave a Reply

This website or its third party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. If you want to know more or withdraw your consent to all or some of the cookies, please refer to the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies.

This website or its third party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. If you want to know more or withdraw your consent to all or some of the cookies, please refer to the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies.