Product Failures: January 2012 Archives

Do we, as specifiers and architects, have an obligation to ensure public safety? I think we do.

The following is an edited version of a letter I wrote to a building owner. The building owner acknowledged receiving the letter, so I am protecting their identity while they address the issue.

When trying to leave one of your buildings, I found a locked exit door that is in violation of the building code and a hazard to the building occupants. Being an architect myself, I could not let this issue go without notifying someone at a significant level of authority. So I am writing to you in hopes that you will deliver this message to someone responsible for your facilities to make the necessary corrections for the building to be code compliant and safe for your students, faculty, and visitors.

                   
Photo #1                                           Photo #2                                            Photo #3

Click photos for larger image so the signs are legible.

The door is marked as an emergency exit by the lighted EXIT sign above the door. Both door leaves are fitted with panic devices, indicating the doors are intended for emergency exiting. However the doors are locked by magnetic locks at the top of each door leaf at the center of the opening. All these conditions can be seen in Photo #1.

The magnetic locks are released by swiping a photo ID in the keypad next to the door, shown in Photo #2. I imagine the locks are also released when the fire alarm or the sprinkler system is activated as required by code, but there was no visible way to tell.

Photo #3 shows a sign that one leaf of the emergency exit door is an entry door only, although it is clearly marked as an exit door.

Because of the ID Card/Keypad and magnetic locks, the door is considered an access-controlled egress door. Therefore, the door must comply with Section 1008.1.3.4 of the ICC Building Code. The code requires a sensor on the egress side to detect an occupant approaching the door and to unlock as a result. The allowable sensors include a motion detector or presence detector. The code also requires a clearly identified emergency PUSH TO EXIT switch within five feet of the door to manually release the magnetic locks in case the sensor fails. Neither a sensor nor an emergency switch exists to release the magnetic locks. In an emergency, a visitor without a photo ID and any panicked student or faculty unable to find and swipe an ID will not be able to exit the building.

This same condition may be repeated for other access-controlled emergency egress doors on campus. I did not attempt to find other code violations. I do suggest that whomever addresses this particular door should survey the other access-controlled doors on campus to determine what other corrective actions are required, if any.

Because the current condition of this door is a significant safety hazard, I expect you to acknowledge receiving this message. I also expect you to tell me what steps will be taken to correct the condition to make the building safe to occupy and when the corrections will be completed.

Thank you for your help to make your buildings safe for students, faculty, and the public. I await your response.

We receive the following suggestion from a building envelope consultant to include in a specification for sealant adhesion testing provided by the contractor.

A. Perform test every 100 feet for the first 1000 feet of joint length for each kind of sealant and joint substrate.

B. If no failures have been found during (A), test every 1000 feet of joint length thereafter or 1 test per each floor per elevation.

C. Additional testing and replacement of non-conforming sealant shall be performed at no cost to the Owner.

My Questions
What is the consequence of failing the first test specified in (A)? No other testing is required because testing specified in (B) is required only when no failures are found by (A).

Does the contractor have a choice between the two testing frequencies in (B)? As written, he does. The spec specifies Frequency 1 "OR" Frequency 2, giving the contractor the option to select the method to use.

Is the contractor obligated to repair the sealant joints damaged by the adhesion testing? The sealant is cut and pulled from the joint during the test. If not repaired the joint will leak.

What is the additional testing in (C) that the owner need not pay for? Is this retesting of areas that are repaired after initial tests fail? Is this testing at more frequent intervals than specified? Who determines the extent of additional testing and when it may be required?

I am sure the owner-contractor agreement does not permit the contractor to deliver defective work as the final product. So is there really a need to say in (C) that the owner does not pay for replacement of non-conforming work?

Should the Contractor Ask?
There are no apparent conflicts in the proposed testing requirements. So there is no need for the contractor to ask for clarification by addendum or RFI.

The best plan for the contractor may be to ensure he installs 900 of the first 1,000 feet of sealant correctly and passes 9 of the 10 initial adhesion tests. The contractor must replace the defective sealant in the area of the failed test. Then the installation can proceed without any additional sealant testing.

Can You Say Change Order?
I am certain the intent is not to stop testing when one of the initial tests fails. But that is not what the spec would say if the consultant's proposed text is included. When the architect or consultant demand the testing be continued, the contractor would be right to request a change order.

There is no requirement that the contractor repair the joints after testing. Will the owner be facing a charge to make these repairs?

Clear, Complete, Concise, Correct
The choice of words is so important to convey true intent. It is easy to analyze what is said, and more difficult to imagine what is not. However, the missing words may well be the key to a complete understanding.

Construct specifications carefully. Say what you mean. Keep it concise so ensure the meaning is clear. Imagine what others may find in what is not said. Above all, be certain the scope is complete.

Proposed Rewrite
How might the text be rewritten to achieve the intended results? Here is my suggestion to the architect. The test method was specified separately.

A. Adhesion Testing: For each type sealant and each joint substrate perform tests at following frequencies:

1. Initial Testing: One test for every 100 feet until 10 successive acceptable tests are completed.

2. Subsequent Testing: One test for every 1000 feet with minimum one test for each floor of each building elevation.

B. Replace and retest defective sealant joints. Perform one adhesion test for each contiguous length of replaced sealant joint, minimum one test for every 50 feet of replacement.

C. Repair sealant joints damaged by testing.