Printed from the blog of Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI
Allegion
Email: lori_greene@allegion.com, Blog: www.idighardware.com or www.ihatehardware.com


Jun 14 2018

WWYD? Impact-Resistant Glazing/Film

Category: Glass,School Security,WWYD?Lori @ 12:33 pm Comments (13)
Share

I want to look into some of the available products for delaying access through glazing for schools and other types of buildings.  The glazing goes hand-in-hand with the door hardware – even the most secure hardware can be overcome by breaking the glass.  The challenge is that I’m not sure where to start.  I’ve seen a few products over the years, but I don’t have direct experience with what works best, the cost differences, installation pros and cons, etc.

Please share your insight in the reply box at the bottom of this post.  What products have you seen used in new schools or retrofit applications?  Do you know someone who is an expert in this field who would be willing to weigh in with some suggestions?

WWYD?

Photo: Greg Abel, Advocates for Safe Glass


Jun 13 2018

WW: Safety vs. Security

A couple of weeks ago I posted a terrific news report that addressed the use of barricade devices in Tennessee schools – the fire marshal had enforced the codes and the devices were removed.

Unfortunately, the fire marshal has faced strong opposition from the sheriff in Perry County, who had raised money to buy barricade devices without realizing that they were not compliant with the adopted codes.  This is not the first time this has happened…once the money has been collected it becomes even more important to override the safety requirements and buy the devices that the community has paid for.

Now the news reports are basically saying that the state fire marshal has changed the codes in Tennessee, and barricade devices are allowed.  But I’m confused.  The codes in Tennessee DID change – on June 1st, the state filed an emergency rule filing form, adopting the classroom locking section of NFPA 101-2018.  But this code does not say “anything goes” – it includes specific requirements for classroom locking.  Here’s the section from the chapter on existing educational occupancies:

15.2.2.2.4 Classroom Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. Classroom doors shall be permitted to be locked to prevent unwanted entry provided that the locking means is approved and all of the following conditions are met:  [Note: “Approved” means acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.]

(1) The locking means shall be capable of being engaged without opening the door.  [Note: The Tennessee form says that the state is not adopting this particular requirement.]

(2) The unlocking and unlatching from the classroom side of the door can be accomplished without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.  [Note:  “Special knowledge or effort” can vary widely, depending on the AHJ’s interpretation.]

(3) The releasing mechanism for unlocking and unlatching shall be located at a height not less than 34 in. (865 mm) and not exceeding 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor.  [Note:  If the mounting height requirement is enforced (as it is also required by the ADA – a federal law), devices which must be released by reaching to the top or bottom of the door would not be compliant.]

(4) Locks, if remotely engaged, shall be unlockable from the classroom side of the door without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.  [Note:  This typically applies to electrified hardware.]

(5) The door shall be capable of being unlocked and opened from outside the room with the necessary key or other credential.  [Note:  Many classroom barricade devices can not be unlocked from the outside with a key or credential.]

(6) The locking means shall not modify the door closer, panic hardware, or fire exit hardware.  [Note: Barricade devices which attach to existing closers and panic hardware are not compliant with this requirement and could also void the warranty and listings of any existing door hardware.]

(7) Modifications to fire door assemblies, including door hardware, shall be in accordance with NFPA 80.  [Note:  NFPA 80 and the model codes require products used as part of a fire door assembly to be listed to UL 10C/NFPA 252.  I don’t know of any barricade devices that have been tested and listed to these standards.  Do you?]

(8) The emergency action plan, required by 15.7.1, shall address the use of the locking and unlocking means from within and outside the room.  [Note: NFPA 3000 includes additional requirements and recommendations for emergency action plans, including a requirement for doors to meet the egress requirements of NFPA 101.  In addition to the requirements listed here, NFPA 101 also limits doors to one releasing operation to retract the latch or latches.  This is one operation to release all latches simultaneously (existing hardware + retrofit security device) – not one operation for each latch.]

(9) Staff shall be drilled in the engagement and release of the locking means, from within and outside the room, as part of the emergency egress drills required by 15.7.2.  [Note: There are additional considerations for classroom security, which are addressed in this article.]

And finally, here’s the news report from Fox 17 News that left me Wordless (but not Wordless enough to keep quiet):

Image and Video:  Fox 17 News


Jun 12 2018

QQ: Dwelling Unit Doors

Category: Accessibility,Doors & FramesLori @ 10:38 am Comments (2)
Share

Sometimes a quick question doesn’t have a quick answer.  And sometimes the answer is not black and white, so if you disagree – go ahead and say so, and we’ll explore further.  Here’s the question:

On a multi-family building, are the dwelling unit doors required to have a 10-inch bottom rail?

If you’re not familiar with the requirement for a 10-inch flush surface at the bottom of the door, there is a Decoded article about it here.  Basically, the current accessibility standards require a flush, smooth area with no protruding hardware on the push side of manual doors, from the floor to 10 inches up the face of the door.

The answer is a qualified “yes” – IF the doors are required to comply with Section 404 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design or ICC A117.1 – Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities (any edition since the 1990’s).  Whether or not the doors need to comply with these standards – and this section of the standards – is where the confusion comes in.

Most multi-family buildings are required to comply with the Fair Housing Act, which accepts several sets of standards for compliance.  Some of these standards do include the requirement for a flush area at the bottom of the door – some do not.  So it’s possible to meet the Fair Housing Act guidelines with a narrow bottom rail.

BUT – most multi-family buildings are also required to comply with the International Building Code (IBC), which references ICC A117.1 – which includes the 10-inch requirement.*  Most manually-operated doors (not automatic doors) are required to have the smooth surface at the bottom on the push side.  BUT – for dwelling units the IBC and ICC A117.1 include different requirements for Accessible units, Type A units, and Type B units.

  • Accessible (fully accessible) and Type A (easily adaptable) units are required to have doors and hardware that meet the requirements of Section 404, at the primary entrance door and all other doors intended for user passage.  This includes the flush bottom rail requirement, which is addressed in Section 404.
  • Type B (partially adaptable) units are required to have doors and hardware that meet the requirements of section 404 on the primary entrance door.  For these units, only the primary entrance door is required by the IBC and ICC A117.1 to have the flush bottom rail.

Under limited circumstances, some dwelling units are not required by the IBC to be Accessible, Type A, or Type B units and would not typically be required to have the flush bottom rail.  ICC A117.1 includes another type of unit that is not currently addressed in the IBC:

  • Type C (visitable) units are not required to have an entrance door that meets A117.1 section 404, but ICC A117.1 includes requirements for clear width and threshold height at these doors.

In order to determine whether multi-family doors need to have a 10-inch smooth surface at the bottom, the questions to ask are:

  • Which code or standard are the doors required to meet?
  • What type of units are the doors serving?
  • Are the doors primary entrance doors, doors intended for user passage, or other doors?

* When the requirement for a flush bottom rail was first introduced in ICC A117.1, the height of the smooth surface was 12 inches.  It has since been changed to 10 inches.


« Previous PageNext Page »


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.