Dead end corridor within mixed occupancies

[Robert]

If you are talking about a door across the corridor, to cut down on the dead end

That is allowed, as long as on the other side, you do not create an exiting violation.

And the door shall be non-locking.

 

[Harrison Staab]

I'd consider myself less eccentric and more just plain weird.

Here's a screenshot of exactly what I am considering.

In case the image doesn't work:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Atn3qX2ujl2LqD2K38cjY7M61Ev9

 

[cda]

Without seeing the whole picture

Looks good

I am thinking add two or three exit signs as you walk out of the A, leading to the exterior exit

 

[Spector_51]

I will never understand dead end corridors and i have been a code official for 25 years.
1. I don't understand how the adding of a door across the corridor makes the exiting form this space any easier, less complicated, or simpler. If anything it may complicate things.
2. I think that dead end corridors, in a facility such as the one that has been exemplified in this post, where the occupants of this building will be very familiar with the components of the means of egress is over-regulation.

Satisfy the requirement for when two exits are required and the provisions for common path of travel and I am of the opinion you should be good to go. In most cases, at least those that i have seen or that i can conjure in my peanut sized brain, the common path of travel and dead end corridors are intimately related.

I know i am charged with enforcement of what is in the book(s) but this never sat right with me.

Of course this all goes away in high occupancy uses and where occupant are transient of in theory, "not familiar with their surroundings".

 

[cda]

I will never understand dead end corridors and i have been a code official for 25 years.
1. I don't understand how the adding of a door across the corridor makes the exiting form this space any easier, less complicated, or simpler. If anything it may complicate things.
2. I think that dead end corridors, in a facility such as the one that has been exemplified in this post, where the occupants of this building will be very familiar with the components of the means of egress is over-regulation.

Satisfy the requirement for when two exits are required and the provisions for common path of travel and I am of the opinion you should be good to go. In most cases, at least those that i have seen or that i can conjure in my peanut sized brain, the common path of travel and dead end corridors are intimately related.

I know i am charged with enforcement of what is in the book(s) but this never sat right with me.

Of course this all goes away in high occupancy uses and where occupant are transient of in theory, "not familiar with their surroundings".

With the door added

The length of dead end is Than in compliance.

People hit the door and hopefully turn towards the proper exit.

Without traveling down the dead end and taking the time to turn around and have to back track,
Using more time,,,


Which they may not have.

 

[Harrison Staab]

Thanks for the replies. I discussed this with a couple other more experienced architects, and while they haven't had to deal with a condition like this, they agreed it was a reasonable solution. We'll be discussing our proposal with the plan reviewer to see what he thinks.

 

[ADAguy]

Finally, someone pointed that out, so is it sprinklered?

 

[Harrison Staab]

In my project, the building is entirely NFPA 13 sprinklered. On the upper floors in which the corridor arrangement is identical, the dead end corridors are not an issue as they exclusively serve group R-2, allowing 50'.

 

[Harrison Staab]

While I'm at it, I might as well share my complete solution, with additional signage as suggested by cda.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Atn3qX2ujl2LqD8RBJYso14gdm7H

 

[sergoodo]

Negotiating an additional door does not make the egress less safe. Without the door the egress is less safe for the other occupants who may make a wrong turn at their peril. Door protects the "unaware"

 

[Harrison Staab]

For those curious, a conversation with the plan reviewer on this topic affirmed that our proposed solution was acceptable. To be honest, I was surprised to hear him say that this was commonly done since I struggled to find much commentary or discussion on the condition.

Thank you to everyone who offered insight.

 

[cda]

For those curious, a conversation with the plan reviewer on this topic affirmed that our proposed solution was acceptable. To be honest, I was surprised to hear him say that this was commonly done since I struggled to find much commentary or discussion on the condition.

Thank you to everyone who offered insight.

Not much different than having a solid wall there