110.26(C) Panic Hardware

Status
Not open for further replies.
tkb

tkb

Senior Member
Location
MA
NEC 110.26(C) Entrance to Working Space
(2) Large Equipment For equipment rated 1200 amperes or more that contains overcurrent devices, switching devices, or control devices, there shall be one entrance to the required working space not less than 610 mm (24 in.) wide and 2.0 m (6 1/ 2 ft) high at each end of the working space. Where the entrance has a personnel door(s), the door(s) shall open in the direction of egress and be equipped with panic bars, pressure plates, or other devices that are normally latched but open under simple pressure.
Click to expand...

Is this requirement requiring crash bar hardware or can lever hardware be used?

Seems to me that this is left kinda vague and left for interpretation.

I have seen this go either way. Should be the call of the Building Inspector.

Is this a requirement that anyone has been stuck with since it is in the electrical code.

Is this in the Life Safety Code NFPA 101? I don't have a current copy.

Architects miss this one all the time.
 
You bring up an interesting point regarding the verbiage of that code section. Would a door handle that requires a small amount of downward pressure to open be code compliant? IMO, maybe. Certainly this would be easier to open than a round door knob.
 
110.26 (C) is 'semi vague'.
Our interp. in my area is 'crash bar' hardware, based on consultation with Bldg & Fire Sub-Code Inspectors.

"Lever' type is not accepted (push down/up). Discussion was based on not being able to use your hands, and 'pushing' the crash bar with body parts to egress.

A 'paddle' type door release was debated, but the size of the paddle, and the location could interfere with egress for someone with burned hands/arms.

Interpertations were based on input from Bldg & Fire, and good old common sense, which unfortunatley is NOT in the NEC.

John:smile:
 
I interpet it as needing a crash bar, but the some think a lever may be all that is needed to comply.

Is this addressed in NFPA 101?
 
IMHO the panic hardware would have to be "crash bar" type. Lever action would not be allowed and a paddle maynot be either because of the limited area it would cover.

The whole point of the crash bar is the door opening if a body hits it. A lever, even though it is of "simple design and operational nature" does not meet the intent of panic hardware because it requires downward pressure to operate. Sorry if that seemed a little redundant.
 
Panic hardware is only one of a few choices listed in 110.26(C)(2):

or other devices that are normally latched but open under simple pressure
Click to expand...

Some would argue that a push down lever operates under simple pressure.
 
infinity said:
Panic hardware is only one of a few choices listed in 110.26(C)(2):
Some would argue that a push down lever operates under simple pressure.
Click to expand...

That is why this topic came up.

My GC is considering a lever so he will not have to change the door to accommodate the crash bar hardware.

I believe the engineer and architect is going to require the crash bar.

I think the NEC is a little vague on this since it lists a few other options and leaves it up to interpretation.
 
How big is the room? Is there more than 36" in front of the service equipment? and is there a larger area at the end of the equipment? "at each end of the working space." If the room is larger than the "working space" and you can go around the working space you may not be required to even worry about the door.

The section talks about egress from the "working space" so if the room is larger you can be out of the "working space" and still be in the room. I don't see where it says you have to be able to "leave the room" in the code. Just a thought for discussion...
 
Chris6245 said:
How big is the room? Is there more than 36" in front of the service equipment? and is there a larger area at the end of the equipment? "at each end of the working space." If the room is larger than the "working space" and you can go around the working space you may not be required to even worry about the door.

The section talks about egress from the "working space" so if the room is larger you can be out of the "working space" and still be in the room. I don't see where it says you have to be able to "leave the room" in the code. Just a thought for discussion...
Click to expand...

110.26 (C) discusses the entrance requirements. I would imagine if a 1200 amp piece of equipment faults, I would want to be a bit further away then the "working space"


edit to add- "leaving the room" in an emergency is what this requirement is about, IMO
 
JohnJ0906 said:
110.26 (C) discusses the entrance requirements. I would imagine if a 1200 amp piece of equipment faults, I would want to be a bit further away then the "working space"


edit to add- "leaving the room" in an emergency is what this requirement is about, IMO
Click to expand...
I don't dissagree with not wanting to be in the room if it faults but...110.26 (A) defines working space as 4' at the maximum (condition 3) and 110.26 (C) is labeled "Entrance to Working Space" so by it's own admission it can only talk about the enterance to that working space and nowhere does it call it a room...The only time a door or door's come into play is if your equipment is in a hallway like room that is only 4' wide in front of the equipment then you would need a door at both ends. Say your 2000 amp switchgear is in a basement that measures say 40'X60' and it is against one of the side walls...would you then need 2 doors out of that room with panic hardware?
 
JohnJ0906 said:
No. 110.26 (C) (2) (a) and (b)
Click to expand...
I still only see "working space" addressed...nowhere does it say "Room"

The enterance to the working space is when you hit the 4' outline in front of the equipment..

Not trying to argue here. Just a discussion of the actuall wording of the code section and one way of looking at it. If you read it for what it says it does only talk about the "working space" and never says anything about enterance to a room.
 
I think the ultimate decision is up to the AHJ, but perhaps the NEC does need to reword that section, maybe by getting with the guys who are writing the I-Codes (God forbid)? I understand the simple pressure opening reasoning behind most installations in such areas; but for the sake of argument, what if there are two of you in a workspace and guy A gets hit and falls against the door with a lever? Guy B cannot get him out of the enviroment so aid can be given.

I can see the AHJ enforcing the crash bars because 101.26 (C)(2) specifically mentions panic hardware. I think this is one of those areas in which we know what we "need" but AHJ wants to be mother to all.
 
Infinity:

We had this debate at a 90k Sq ft new car dealership at final inspection, that I failed for this, and a few other minor items.

AS the NEC is 'vague', I had a discussion with Fire & Bldg Sub-Codes, and checked the UCC to see 'who' is responsible for enforcement. A call to DCA, clarified that Elec Sub-Code is responsible.

GC wanted to use levers, prints implied panic hardware, but did not 'spec' it.

Two door got panic bars installed; end of discussion.

IMHO, levers do not allow egress with damaged limbs (hands/arms). A 'paddle' although 'pushable' with outward motion, offers a relatively small area for contact. Think about how you would egress if you were hurt.

BTW, this discussion was over on ECN site also

Stay safe
John
 
John Arendt said:
Infinity:


IMHO, levers do not allow egress with damaged limbs (hands/arms). A 'paddle' although 'pushable' with outward motion, offers a relatively small area for contact. Think about how you would egress if you were hurt.

BTW, this discussion was over on ECN site also

Stay safe
John
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing which would be better. I agree that panic hardware that could open even if someone fell back wards into would be better. But the Article is not written as to require only panic hardware. If they dropped the reference to operating under simple pressure then we're all good. But by including those words within the requirement some could argue that a slight downward push on a lever handle would in fact constitute simple pressure. If this were a round door knob than the answer is obvious that it wouldn't comply, but a lever IMO would be compliant since it operates under simple pressure.
 
Chris6245 said:
How big is the room? Is there more than 36" in front of the service equipment? and is there a larger area at the end of the equipment? "at each end of the working space." If the room is larger than the "working space" and you can go around the working space you may not be required to even worry about the door.
Click to expand...

Hardware on door applies no mater size of room the number of exists maybe reduced for size of room that is all 110.26(2)
 
Infinity:
First, we (you and I) are not arguing, just sharing opinions, right?

Yes, a 'lever' type could be debated, as to the downward pressure thing, but... as I said above the consensus was "NO". My first thoughts were 'the lever would work', after the discussion, especially the input from Fire Sub-Code, my thoughts changed.

As most stated above the CMP should consider a re-write and be specific.

Stay safe!
John
 
John Arendt said:
As most stated above the CMP should consider a re-write and be specific.

Stay safe!
John
Click to expand...


We both agree on this. If what they really want is just panic hardware then say panic hardware only.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top