9.5 Closure Question

HOME Forums Forums Fire Code & Enforcement 9.5 Closure Question

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #9224
      Ben TrendleBen Trendle
      Moderator
      • City: Niagara Falls
      • Department Name: Niagara Falls

      I am dealing with a 2 storey apartment building. Each floor has a fire separation mid-corridor with swing type door. No latching mechanism.

      9.5.2.8 (1) Requires closures to be in compliance with 1990 Building Code.

      3.1.18.13 of the 1990 Building Code requires swing type doors to be equipped with positive latching device.

      9.5.2.8.(3) [Ontario Fire Code]  allows existing closures for compliance.

      My question is, an existing swing type door that meets the criteria set out in the exemption does not have a latching device. Does this exemption allow for the absence of the latch? If this closure in the required fire separation does not have a latch, is the integrity of the separation maintained?

    • #9226
      Tanya KorolowTanya Korolow
      Participant

      Hi Ben,

      I had the same question this morning and discussed it with a coworker. Our interpretation allowed for the absence of the latch.

      Latching requirements were only introduced in the 1986 OBC so perhaps the change wasn’t required since the doors in question were relatively new when 9.5 became effective in 1992. Just a guess.

       

    • #9227
      Ben TrendleBen Trendle
      Moderator
      • City: Niagara Falls
      • Department Name: Niagara Falls

      Thanks Tanya!

    • #9293
      Joseph GardinerJoseph Gardiner
      Participant
      • City: North Bay
      • Department Name: North Bay Fire & Emergency Services

      Hello Ben,

      Sorry for the late response. It seems there are hidden forums that I am discovering.

      I would also agree with the both of you and would add that you consider “existing”. “existing” means in existence on October 9, 1992.

      If you cannot establish when the doors were installed I would revert and enforce 9.5.2.8. (1).

      Let me know what your thoughts are,

      Joe Gardiner

      North Bay Fire

    • #9326

      we are having a similar issue in a larger apartment building here, 3 stories, 42 units. at some point the latching hardware was removed from the doors, (it is evident it was there at one point) previous inspections from other prevention officers had missed the lack of hardware and i am attempting to have the owner either install approved hardware or replace the doors as required. he is arguing that they are existing, and that they have been like that for a long time. our next step i believe was going to write an order under 9.5.2.8(1) and using the requirements of 2.7.2.1.

    • #9327
      Joseph GardinerJoseph Gardiner
      Participant
      • City: North Bay
      • Department Name: North Bay Fire & Emergency Services

      Hello Nicholas,

      You may want to consider using 2.2.3.3. for your particular situation:

      Operation of closures

      2.2.3.3. Closures in fire separations shall not be obstructed, blocked, wedged open, or altered in any way that would prevent the intended operation of the closure.

      The key for me in this sentence would be “altered”. It appears that the fire doors in this building have been altered from their original design/use.

      Let me know what you think and good luck,

      Joe Gardiner

      North Bay Fire

    • #9336
      Ben TrendleBen Trendle
      Moderator
      • City: Niagara Falls
      • Department Name: Niagara Falls

      Thanks everyone for their feedback on this one. Good Discussion.

    • #9410
      John WilsonJohn Wilson
      Participant
      • Department Name: Perth Fire Services

      As I understand it, latches are required on all doors in fire separations under 2.2.3.2.(1) Closures in fire separations shall be maintained to ensure that they are operable at all times by (c) making necessary adjustments and repairs to door hardware and accessories to ensure proper closing and latching.

      With the closure already being there, it becomes a Pt2 issue, not 9.5 if it was removed. If there never was a latch to begin with, then it’s the 9.5.2.8 that applies.

    • #9442
      Karen DunsterKaren Dunster
      Participant

      You can easily tell if the door was existing by looking at the frame.  If there is a latch hole in the frame, then obviously at some point there was a latching mechanism.  If there is no hole then no latching mechanism existed previously.

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.