• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

All doors out of a bldg required to be code compliant exits?

mtlogcabin said:
Exterior doors may lead to an outside area that will not lead to a public way or a safe dispersal area. Therefore they will not meet the code for an exit in a means of exit system since there is no exit discharge
Click to expand...
This is an open and shut case.
 
Yikes said:
akelly, welcome to the forum!
It really helps is you tell us (1) where the project is located, so we know which code/jurisdiction is applicable, and (2) whether it is (a) new, (b) existing with no changes, or (c) existing with an addition or alteration proposed.

If you have a space that requires 2 exit doors but has 12 exit doors, then only 2 doors need to be made "code compliant" with the provisions IBC chapter 10 'Means Of Egress'. You certainly would not have exit signs on the other 10 doors if you don't intend to use them for exiting.

Since this was posted in the Accessibility forum, perhaps you meant to ask, "do the other 10 convenience doors in excess of those required by CBC chapter 10 need to be made mobility accessible per CBC chapter 11B?"

Assuming it is in Sacramento or somewhere in California, CBC 11B-206.4.1 for new buildings has a couple of exceptions:

View attachment 8279

ADA is a separate but related issue that you will want to consider as well. It will not be enforced by your city building official.
ADA Standard 206.4.1 says:
View attachment 8280

Let us know if your building is existing - - there may be a different response for existing vs. new.
Click to expand...

Yikes said:
akelly, welcome to the forum!
It really helps is you tell us (1) where the project is located, so we know which code/jurisdiction is applicable, and (2) whether it is (a) new, (b) existing with no changes, or (c) existing with an addition or alteration proposed.

If you have a space that requires 2 exit doors but has 12 exit doors, then only 2 doors need to be made "code compliant" with the provisions IBC chapter 10 'Means Of Egress'. You certainly would not have exit signs on the other 10 doors if you don't intend to use them for exiting.

Since this was posted in the Accessibility forum, perhaps you meant to ask, "do the other 10 convenience doors in excess of those required by CBC chapter 10 need to be made mobility accessible per CBC chapter 11B?"

Assuming it is in Sacramento or somewhere in California, CBC 11B-206.4.1 for new buildings has a couple of exceptions:

View attachment 8279

ADA is a separate but related issue that you will want to consider as well. It will not be enforced by your city building official.
ADA Standard 206.4.1 says:
View attachment 8280

Let us know if your building is existing - - there may be a different response for existing vs. new.
Click to expand...
This post has me considering my current project, a 5000sf existing tenant improvement in California. The building has 7 existing doors but only requires one exit based on 30 or less occupancy. We are making the middle door accessible and the only designated exit for egress, but I've been assuming the other doors can remain as-is

The other 6 doors have accessibility issues. Several lead to a back alley less than 44", another has a single step, and the last has a shutter.
 
1009.1 Accessible means of egress required. Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress are required by Section 1006.2 or 1006.3 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress. Exceptions: 1. Accessible means of egress are not required to be provided in existing buildings.

YCMV....
 
steveray said:
1009.1 Accessible means of egress required. Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress are required by Section 1006.2 or 1006.3 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress. Exceptions: 1. Accessible means of egress are not required to be provided in existing buildings.

YCMV....
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you. That exception isn't mentioned in the CBC. But a similar exception is included in the CEBC under alterations.

CEBC 305.6 Alterations
up.codes

Chapter 3 Provisions for All Compliance Methods: Provisions for All Compliance Methods, Los Angeles City Existing Building Code 2019 | UpCodes

UpCodes offers a consolidated resource of construction and building code grouped by jurisdiction
up.codes up.codes
 
1010.1 Doors. Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1022.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.

It does come down to who determines the purpose of a door. The purpose of a door is obvious. To assume that a door that is in addition to the required means of egress door need not meet the requirements of a means of egress door simply because an entity has determined that said door was not provided for egress purposes …. That’s just wrong.

How about the homeowners that tell you that no smoke alarm is required in that bedroom because they are using it as an office. Did that bedroom magically become not a bedroom. Didn’t happen did it. It didn’t happen because there is no reason to rely on the the occupants to respect the designation as an office and not use it as a bedroom. It is after all a bedroom.

Providing doors that do not meet the same requirements as a “means of egress system” doors Is legal as long as it is not possible to “egress“ through the door. Well then, what is the definition of egress through a door? My conclusion is that egressing a space means exiting that space.

I’ll provide an example. A nightclub is required to have four exits. The club has six doors to the exterior. Four of the doors open in the direction of travel and two swing in. All but the blind people see the six doors. The people don’t perform a mental exercise to decide which doors are the required egress doors…you know, much as the architect did. No, not at all. They see the doors….they know that the other side of the door is outside.

Now unfortunately a pyrotechnic display ignites the ceiling. People are fleeing. The people that found the four required exit doors got out. The people that found the extra exit doors that swung in were found later that night.

Buildings will present individual situations. Residential as opposed to commercial, etc. The final arbiter is the occupant that opens the door. An absolute exception applied to doors over and above the required number of doors due to semantics is not just wrong but is also unjustifiable.
 
Last edited:
How did they not find the 4 doors with the lit exit signs but they did find the 2 unlit unmarked ones in a dark nightclub? And one of the required exits was locked at the station nightclub BTW....
 
steveray said:
How did they not find the 4 doors with the lit exit signs but they did find the 2 unlit unmarked ones in a dark nightclub? And one of the required exits was locked at the station nightclub BTW....
Click to expand...
IIRC the door next to stage was deliberately blocked by the band and one of there crew prevented people from leaving that way. One was through the kitchen and not easily located. The side door out of the bar area - can't recall. And the main entrance was narrow and restricted by ticket counter and a second door for blocking sound. As is predictable, most people tried to exit the way they came in. You go with what you know in an emergency. But it was narrow and cramped and pushing from behind caused people in the door to get jammed. It was hard to imagine a crowd crush - people jammed so tight together they couldn't move - but that has been repeated at a lot of large loos of life assembly events.

Sorry to get off topic - just spend so much time on this tragedy visiting site and days of hearings at NFPA headquarters.
 
Another example....Exterior door in a private office...now it is a required exit, now we have to add exit signs to get to it...Now you have created a violation of 1016.2 for egress through intervening and you can't lock the office.....

I am not saying we couldn't design stuff better, just saying that it shouldn't have to be "ALL EXTERIOR DOORS"....Common sense has to kick in somewhere...
 
steveray said:
How did they not find the 4 doors with the lit exit signs but they did find the 2 unlit unmarked ones in a dark nightclub? And one of the required exits was locked at the station nightclub BTW....
Click to expand...
I did not give my example a name. Of course in my world all of the egress doors have illuminated exit signs. Why the lemming effect takes hold is not my problem to solve. Providing the bare minimum as required by code is my problem. If nothing else, the Station fire is proof that more can be done to protect life. The Station fire has no bearing on the issue at hand.
 
In my world all of the required exit doors have lit exit signs as well (except when only one is required of course)...Human nature led them back to the entrance which should also be an exit and possibly a "main exit"

1029.2 Assembly main exit. A building, room or space used for assembly purposes that has an occupant load of greater than 300 and is provided with a main exit, that main exit shall be of sufficient capacity to accommodate not less than one half of the occupant load,

Which CT has revised further to require 2/3 the OL to get out....
 
steveray said:
Another example....Exterior door in a private office...now it is a required exit, now we have to add exit signs to get to it...Now you have created a violation of 1016.2 for egress through intervening and you can't lock the office.....

I am not saying we couldn't design stuff better, just saying that it shouldn't have to be "ALL EXTERIOR DOORS"....Common sense has to kick in somewhere...
Click to expand...
Interesting example. I have several theatres with chorus dressing rooms - 10-20 occupants - with doors to exterior. Similar situation. Doors to exterior are compliant with exit sign. Doors from corridor/backstage are not signed and are lockable. I don't know why door from dressing room shouldn't be compliant. You might show me code doesn't require a sign for that number - but the fire marshal will require it 9 times out of 10 - which makes it required as far as I'm concerned.

All the doors in an auditorium are usually complaint with illuminated sing yet you can lock them barring entry, and not allow people in other parts of the building access to those exits to the exterior.

Where does it say that exits in excess of what is required have to be useable by all building occupants and that no exit door can be from an otherwise locked room?
 
The last line of 1010.1 in post 102 above...If you want to treat it literally which is what this thread is about...Or has become about...
bill1952 said:
Where does it say that exits in excess of what is required have to be useable by all building occupants and that no exit door can be from an otherwise locked room?
Click to expand...
 
Here is what it says in 2021 edition with my emphasis:

1010.1 General.

Doors in the means of egress shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1010.1.1 through 1010.3.4. Exterior exit doors shall also comply with the requirements of Section 1022.2. Gates in the means of egress shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1010.4 and 1010.4.1. Turnstiles in the means of egress shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1010.5 through 1010.5.4.

Doors, gates and turnstiles provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall comply with the requirements of this section.

Doors in the means of egress shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors. Mirrors or similar reflecting materials shall not be used on means of egress doors. Means of egress doors shall not be concealed by curtains, drapes, decorations or similar materials.

"Egress through intervening spaces" is in section 1016, specifically 1016.2, and not in section 1010.

So is this fixed from earlier editions or do you think 2021 says same thing? "this section" seems only to deal with size, projections, hardware, etc. - the doors and surroundings physical properties - an not the arrangement.
 
Last edited:
Lets boil this down a bit and see if we are misunderstanding each other....1010.1 basically says doors provided for egress purposes meet this section (1010 as a door) That I can mostly get on board with...which might bring in some hardware and some other stuff (still with MT in post 36 though)...What it does not say is that it has to be is an exit. ....and 1013 is signage so really would not be in play....Maybe we can clear this up in 2027..... :rolleyes:

Perfect example where code already recognizes non-egress doors:

1010.1.4.1.2 Other than egress component. A revolving door used as other than a component of a means of egress shall comply with Section 1010.1.4.1. The breakout force of a revolving door not used as a component of a means of egress shall not be more than 180 pounds (801 N).

bill1952 said:
that I believe as an amenity in the space are required to be accesible.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that doors are an amenity, but I certainly would review accessibility to all doors....As part of the circulation path or accessible route...
 
A door that leads to a small outdoor dining area for lets say 40 people with no other means of exit is not an exit for the restaurant but it is the exit for the outdoor dinning area.
The door that leads to the outside fenced storage area or play area at a daycare might be an exterior door but not an exit door because the fenced area is not large enough to meet the requirements of a safe dispersal area and you can't get to the public way because of the fence
 
Which again...might be better than burning, but I am not going to steer people there with signage and everything that goes along with an exit door.........
 
mtlogcabin said:
A door that leads to a small outdoor dining area for lets say 40 people with no other means of exit is not an exit for the restaurant but it is the exit for the outdoor dinning area.
The door that leads to the outside fenced storage area or play area at a daycare might be an exterior door but not an exit door because the fenced area is not large enough to meet the requirements of a safe dispersal area and you can't get to the public way because of the fence
Click to expand...
Providing doors that do not meet the same requirements as a “means of egress system” doors Is legal as long as it is not possible to “egress“ through the door. Well then, what is the definition of egress through a door? My conclusion is that egressing a space means exiting that space.

Exiting is not stepping into fenced dining area or a play room or a pallet yard. I can’t remember which thread this is. Whatever it is I agree to disagree.

At this point I am here just for the ads.
 
Last edited:
It would seem that those doors to the exterior which do not lead to the public way are clearly not provided for egress (except into the building) We're just debating those doors to the exterior which do allow you to continue to the public way and the contention they are not provided for egress.
 
bill1952 said:
Doors, gates and turnstiles provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall comply with the requirements of this section.
Click to expand...

So if they had an extra door that they didn't want to be used for egress purposes they should put a "NO EXIT" sign and a padlock on it to prove the door is not provided for egress?
 
Rick18071 said:
So if they had an extra door that they didn't want to be used for egress purposes they should put a "NO EXIT" sign and a padlock on it to prove the door is not provided for egress?
Click to expand...
My position is clear way up - doors to the exterior should be comply with the egress code requirement. It's just simpler, saves time, and makes sense to me. I'm not sure why if it could be an exit that someone wouldnt want it used but yes, fasten shut, paint same as wall, remove hardware. Or put up some furring and cover it. Or do what satisfies officials.

I've had the advantage of working on mostly new build, so don't usually install extra and un-needed doors. Never had the money for extra doors.
 
We can agree to disagree....A good portion of the buildings I have worked on have "extra" doors for some reason or other....I say the BO, FM, owner, and designer should talk about how to handle them in your AHJ....
 
in my part of texas .. in new construction..any exit door has to be ADA compliant... we often design other doors that could be considered as exit doors but are for function only.. (not ada accessible)... and on those doors we do not put exit signs nor ADA signage... easy to tell which are exits and which are not.
 
wilgrp said:
in my part of texas .. in new construction..any exit door has to be ADA compliant... we often design other doors that could be considered as exit doors but are for function only.. (not ada accessible)... and on those doors we do not put exit signs nor ADA signage... easy to tell which are exits and which are not.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know what the wording of the code was changed to in your area from IBC 1009.1 which does not required more than 2 accessible means of egress.
Do all entrances need to be accessible in your area too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top