SSI serves security installing contractors providing systems and services; surveillance, access control, biometrics, fire alarm and home control/automation. Coverage in commercial and residential product applications, designs, techniques, operations.
Issue link: https://securitysales.epubxp.com/i/166764
ACCESS CONTROL COMPLIANCE FOR SCHOOLS Not understanding code requirements for accessibility, fre resistance and egress can result in noncompliant door openings and liability. A working knowledge of the codes should be included in the education of each person involved in this work to avoid pitfalls. for doors with electromagnetic locks. Tis would typically be applied to electromagnetic locks controlled by a motion sensor and also requires an emergency pushbutton that unlocks the door for 30 seconds — independent of the access control system, automatic unlock upon fre alarm and unlock upon power failure. Both sets of requirements apply to specifc occupancy types, so the use of electromagnetic locks in either confguration is restricted to those occupancies. When electromagnetic locks are specifed, keep in mind the requirement for 80 inches of headroom from the foor to the projecting hardware. Tere is an exception that allows 78 inches to the closer arm or overhead stop, but this exception does not specifcally address electromagnetic locks that project below the 80-inch point. Where there is a need to restrict the fow of trafc, such as a cleanroom in a university laboratory, interlocks are often FIELD MODIFICATION OF FIRE DOORS I f new access control hardware is installed on a fre door assembly, the requirements of NFPA 80 — "Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives" — must be followed. There are strict limitations within NFPA 80 for feld modifcation of fre doors, including a limitation of 1-inch diameter holes for new hardware (except cylinder holes, which may be of any diameter). If the preparations for new hardware exceed the limits set by NFPA 80, the door and frame may need to be relabeled by the listing agency, which can be very costly. Any modifcations must also maintain the required self-closing and positive-latching functions. A violation example of this would be where fre exit hardware has been removed and electromagnetic locks installed — leaving fre doors with no positive latch and affecting the assembly's ability to restrict the spread of fre. 102 / SECURITYSALES.COM / SEPTEMBER 2013 specifed. Tese are typically set up as a vestibule with two door openings that control access and egress by allowing only one door to be opened at a time. When one door is opened and someone enters the vestibule or interlock, the second door may not be opened until the frst door comes to a close. Interlocks are not addressed in the IBC or NFPA 101, so each case must be addressed with the code ofcial for that jurisdiction. Emergency devices, such as an alarmed pushbutton, should be specifed inside the room and inside the vestibule to provide a means of emergency egress. An override from the access side should be provided as well, to allow access in an emergency. ROOFTOPS AND WRAPPING UP Many schools incorporate enclosed courtyards to increase the natural light to spaces within the building's interior and it is becoming more common to see university roof decks used as assembly space. If these spaces are accessible to building occupants, free egress must be provided — often back into the building. From a security perspective this can sometimes be a problem but any methods implemented to restrict egress from the courtyard or roof would require approval from the code ofcial. If a roof is used only for mechanical equipment and the door is locked from the stairs side, free egress from the roof may not be required depending on the specifc code that has been adopted for the project's jurisdiction. If a courtyard is only used for light and green space and is never occupied by anyone other than landscaping or service personnel, consideration may be given for the egress from this space as well. In closing, a lack of understanding of code requirements for accessibility, fre resistance and egress can result in noncompliant door openings and liability for the security integrator, supplier and institution. A working knowledge of the codes pertaining to door openings should be included in the education of each person involved in this work to avoid pitfalls. If noncompliant hardware is supplied to a school, the code ofcial may require replacement of the new material with appropriate products. If the problem is not identifed during the code ofcial's inspection, a situation could arise that results in lack of access or egress, injury or even fatalities. Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI is Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies' Manager-Codes and Resources. Read her security hardware blog at idighardware.com or contact her at lori_greene@irco.com.