David Barbaree sent me a great Fixed-it Friday example of what happens when security, egress, convenience and function collide. Apparently the delayed egress panic hardware that was installed to accommodate the egress requirements for the elevator lobby was in conflict with the operation of this area. After having three babies I can say that delaying access to the maternity unit would not be popular!
I got a little more info from David – these doors are part of the means of egress from the public elevator lobby through the maternity area to a stairway, which is why the doors have delayed egress locks. The 2024 International Building Code (IBC) allows a fail safe lock to be used if the other criteria in the code are met, but prior editions of the IBC did not permit that application. You can read more about this code change here.
The delayed egress locks shown in these photos will allow egress through (and access to) the maternity area after a 15-second delay, with an audible alarm sounding until the hardware is rearmed (not ideal!). Look closely at the top strikes to see how someone has overcome the “problem” of the delayed egress locks going into alarm, leaving the maternity area with no security.
The real solution would be to allow egress from the elevator lobby to a stairwell without going through the maternity area!
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
Minor correction, Lori:
This is a path of egress from the public elevator lobby through the maternity unit. It is likely this alarm was going off all the time and the strike was disabled due to alarm fatigue. Now this unit has no security. Normally I say “delayed egress = delayed security breach” but this opening let’s you walk right in.
Side note: Just inside this door is another DE opening to the security staff elevators. Relocating the stairwell would have eliminated the DE openings.
This bypass will be corrected promptly but we don’t know how long it has been like this.
It is important for Security design to be included very early in the architectural design.
As I recall from almost 35 years ago, back then there were security concerns about people taking someone else’s infant. Had to match the child’s ID mini-bracelet to the parent’s to be allowed to leave.
Someone goofed when planning a building egress route that had to pass through a sensitive area.
Here’s an issue that hasn’t been raised yet: is this elevator lobby required to be enclosed? IBC requires elevator hoistway door protection in Group I-2, and enclosed elevator lobbies are one way of accomplishing this. If so, the reversed strike seems to be an actual violation.
I’m not sure Emil, but I’m sure the strike has already been fixed.
– Lori
Also missing the required center screw on the strike.