In 2007, the annual inspection of fire door assemblies became a code requirement that is gradually being adopted across the U.S. Given the enormous quantity of fire doors and the relatively small number of qualified fire door inspectors, implementation of this change has been challenging, but because of the appalling condition of the fire doors I see daily, I am determined to increase awareness of this requirement and use it to improve the safety of buildings.
Luckily, we are safely home and the hotel didn't catch on fire, but I did take a quick tour of the place before we left. Almost none of the fire doors that I looked at were code-compliant, and I wasn't being nitpicky.
I recently received my copy of the 2010 edition of NFPA 80 - Standard for Fire Doors & Other Opening Protectives, and I spent some time today perusing the changes (indicated by a vertical line to the left of the revised text).
Once again, failure to follow fire safety and egress code requirements in a nightclub has resulted in a fire with multiple fatalities. The death toll from the December 4th fire at the Lame Horse in Perm, Russia currently stands at 112 with more than 100 people severely injured.
UPDATE: I wanted to preserve this original post but the recommended specification section on fire and egress door assembly inspections has been updated and is available HERE.
I ran across this photo today on a network security blog (click the photo to go there). -->
The 2009 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) contains an important change that's easy to miss if you're not looking for it. I stumbled across it a few months ago when someone asked me about the exception for cross-corridor doors without positive latching in I-2 occupancies.
In a post about opening force a while back, I wrote that fire doors do not have to meet the opening force requirements of the accessibility codes and standards. While that IS true, someone recently asked me a question that led to this further explanation.
When I started working in the door and hardware industry, we regularly installed fusible link louvers in fire-rated doors, as allowed by various door manufacturers' listings. Although fusible link louvers are still available, their use is limited by current codes:
There's an article in the May/June 2009 issue of the NFPA Journal about the inspection of egress doors and fire doors. You can access the article here. It's an excellent overview of the inspection requirements found in the 2009 Edition of NFPA 101 - The Life Safety Code.
There's an exception in the Health Care chapters of NFPA 101 that I've always wondered about. It's in the chapters regarding New & Existing Health Care Occupancies (18 & 19), in the section about corridors:
My last post referenced the term "exit enclosure", and I received a few questions about its meaning. An exit enclosure is the enclosure around an exit. For our purposes it usually refers to a stairwell. According to the IBC, exit enclosures connecting 4 or more stories require a 2-hour fire resistance rating, and those connecting less than 4 stories require a 1-hour fire resistance rating (IBC-2009-1022.1). Exit enclosures must lead directly to the exterior or to an exit passageway, which will typically have the same fire resistance rating as the exit enclosure. The IBC includes some exceptions for exits which do not need to be enclosed, such as stairs in parking garages.
A temperature rise door is a fire-rated door which limits the heat transfer through the door for a period of 30 minutes. Temperature rise ratings indicate the maximum rise above ambient temperature on the non-fire side of the door, and will be either 250°, 450°, or 650° F. The 250° door is the most restrictive because it limits the heat transfer to only 250° for a 30-minute period. A typical hollow metal door would reach approximately 1400° F in the same time period. By minimizing the transfer of heat, a temperature rise door could protect an exit enclosure, allowing people to pass below the floor of fire origin.
My only hesitation in posting these photos is that they are probably the best photos of Doors Gone Wrong that I have ever seen, and any future photos will pale in comparison. These are the holy grail of bad door photos, which I received from Eyal Bedrik of Entry Systems Ltd. in Israel. According to Eyal, these are temperature rise doors, which you can learn more about in my next post.
I've spent several phone calls this week discussing "dogging" with one of my favorite clients. I guess it is kind of hard to keep straight if you're not a hardware person. The term "dogging" refers to holding the latch(es) of a panic device retracted to create a push/pull function. When the panic device is dogged, it is unlocked/unlatched and you can just pull on the door to open it. When the panic device is not dogged, it is latched and you need an active trim (like a lever) or a key to retract the latch(es) and open the door. In either case, free egress is achieved at any time by pushing on the touchpad or crossbar of the panic device.
I love it when I'm able to solve one of life's great mysteries. Today I was asked whether a 90-minute fire rated door required a threshold. The short answer is "no" but my coworker Greg chimed in to ask about fire rated openings with combustible floor covering running through. There's a paragraph in NFPA 80 that I've wondered about in the past (for about 5 seconds), which says that combustible floor coverings can extend under doors that are rated up to 90 minutes as long as the minimum critical radiant flux is .22 W/cm2. What that means, I have no clue, although Zeke tried to put it in terms of a lightbulb for me one time.
This article was written by Carl Prinzler, one of the creators of the original exit device, at the end of the 1930's. I think it's an interesting insight into the development of the first exit device and the code requirements at that time.
What you're looking at is an existing fire rated frame with a new door that I saw recently during a fire door inspection. Most of the other doors that I inspected that day had steel hinge fillers to fill the existing hinge preps before the continuous hinges were installed. So why were a half-dozen or so filled with expandable foam insulation? Hmm...it's a mystery.
I saw this hold open device on a fire rated door to a computer lab recently.
The 2007 edition of NFPA 80 contains an important change regarding the clearance at the bottom of a fire rated door. In previous editions of this standard, there was a somewhat confusing table (Table 1-11.4) listing different allowable clearance dimensions depending on the flooring material. The 2007 edition simplifies this requirement, allowing 3/4" clearance under the bottom of the door regardless of the flooring. The only exception is when the bottom of the door is more than 38" above the floor, ie. dutch doors and counter shutters.
A few years ago, an architect that I've worked with for over 20 years called me and indignantly asked, "Do you know the maximum height for a kick plate on a fire door?!" I answered that it was 16" above the bottom of the door. The architect said, "Well! We tried to write our own hardware spec for a 15-door job. There were 11 hardware sets and there has been a problem with every set except one, and now there's a problem with THAT set...the kick plate is too high!" As far as I know, they never tried to write their own hardware spec again.
I recently conducted a fire door assembly inspection and I noted that many of the existing frames had old holes that had been patched with Bondo filler putty. NFPA 80 requires that holes left by the removal of hardware must be filled with steel fasteners or with the same material as the door or frame. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a filler putty-type product that has been tested for this use. If anyone knows of a putty that is acceptable for use on fire-rated doors and frames, I'd love to hear about it.
In the last 2 days, a certified fire door inspector and a hardware supplier have both asked me where it is stated that Maine and Massachusetts have adopted the 2007 edition of NFPA 80, which includes the requirement for the annual inspection of fire doors.
According to the International Residential Code, the door between a private garage and a single family home must provide protection from fire. The picture to the right is from a fire department website describing how the door between the garage and the home protected the rest of the residence and its occupants. The door must be a solid wood or solid/honeycomb core steel door, at least 1 3/8" thick, or a door with a 20-minute label.
This morning a customer asked about using continuous hinges to change the hand of a pair of rated doors (inswing to outswing), in an equal rabbet frame. I couldn't think of any objections - the existing hinge preps would be filled with steel fillers in compliance with NFPA 80. The continuous hinges wouldn't require a hole greater than the maximum 1" diameter allowed by NFPA 80. I checked with Steelcraft to see if our frames need to be reinforced for continuous hinges when used in a rated application, and the answer was no. So...although the AHJ always has the final say in the matter, I can't think of one reason you can't do this as long as it is an equal rabbet frame.
The instructors in my Fire Door Assembly Inspector (FDAI) class showed us a really handy gauge to measure clearances around fire rated doors, and since I'm going to do my first *official* inspection tomorrow I tracked one down. It can easily and accurately measure 1/16", 1/8", 3/16", 1/4", and 3/8" gaps, and a 3/4" undercut. For only $18.95, you can be the proud owner of your own Door Gap Gauge by shopping online at doorgapgauge.com.
