HAPPY 2021!
I for one am very happy to see 2020 behind us, and looking forward to the new year. It feels like a fresh start and I’m hopeful about better days ahead. I hope your holidays were happy and that you were able to take some time to recharge.
We are now beginning a new code development cycle for the International Building Code, and NFPA 101 – Life Safety Code will follow soon. This gives us an opportunity to propose changes to the codes that affect door openings the most… – modifications that can address new products or old problems (or both!).
I have a wish list that I add to throughout the 3-year cycle, but I don’t want to miss anything, so I’m wondering what’s on your wish list? Are there code requirements that are often misinterpreted in your jurisdiction? Or applications that the codes are unclear on? Inconsistencies between the model codes that can cause problems in the field?
One of my priorities is to further clarify the code sections affecting electrified hardware – the different electrified hardware applications and the codes that address them are probably the most frequently-asked questions I receive. What else? The IBC proposals are due NEXT MONDAY, so time is short!
WWYD?
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
BAN any signage within ten feet of a door,
1. From using the any other word connected with Exit,,
For instances Fire exit, Emergency exit, Exit only, etc.
2. Exception, unless required by the IBC.
Happy 2021 and new code cycle!!!
Hi Charles –
Tell me more about your concerns regarding this signage. There are many many doors that have signage related to being an exit, even when that particular sign is not required by the IBC.
– Lori
There is an unintentional gap concerning electrified locks in high rises. There are 6+story buildings built into a hill that are less than 75 ft. tall at the upper entrance.
Recently, ICC confirmed that the gap exists and “Their recommendation was that we ask the city for an alternative means of compliance.”
Hi Ed –
That issue has been fixed. Here’s where I originally wrote about the problem: https://idighardware.com/2014/09/stairwell-reentry-revisited/, and here is the change that was approved: http://302lo7vqic1w7ipm26cbqvrj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IBC-Stairwell-Reentry-E74-15.pdf. Basically, the requirement for the two-way communication system only applies to high-rise buildings, and buildings of any number of stories can have electrified locks with remote release (or passage sets).
– Lori
I would adopt the language of ICC A117.1-217 sections 404.2.6, 7, and 8. But most specifically section 404.2.8 about Door Operating Force. Once and for all clear up that potentially life threatening confusion here in California about CBC 11B-309.4
Hi Nathan –
A change was made to the 2021 IBC which makes the operable force limitations consistent with the 2017 edition of A117.1. Because California incorporates the ADA standards into their building code requirements, this change does not solve the problem there, but there is more information about the IBC change in this blog post: https://idighardware.com/2020/09/decoded-opening-force-vs-operable-force-november-december-2020/.
– Lori
All the model building codes should adopt the 2018 NFPA 3000 standard. This is the ASHER (Active Shooter/Hostile Event Response) standard. We should be taking an active approach to protecting not only our schools, but all individuals in public spaces.