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.
I agree that this plan makes the side exits look immediately visible (therefore no exit sign per IBC 1013.1) [251120 edit - requires Exception 2, see my #15] but my question is if this immediate visibility will be hindered after they park a few cars in the showroom.
That is correct, comment already made.
I tend to agree, but code could be cleaner by using the word "required". In this case they apparently intend them to be exits, but I also think they qualify as immediately visible so they don't need exit signs.
IMO, if they provide an exit sign on a non-required exit, they are telling people that the non-required exit is an equally valid exiting option as the required exit. Therefore, it ought to function as well as a required exit, for everything from signage to egress width and slopes, etc.
Perhaps the intent is that all doors providing egress have exit signs.
The side doors are “exterior exit doors at the level of exit discharge” (per IBC definition of “Exit”), therefore 1013.1 applies.
If an exit sign is to serve as an exit sign, even if it is not required, it should meet the requirements of the code.
That is reasonable and what I would expect if I submitted a plan for your review. If they made a change in the field and put in a non-compliant sign I would expect it to fail inspection.
I’d say it’s a violation of the standard of care for an architect to intentionally include such misleading safety features.
Code is non-specific to whether the intent is for all doors, or required doors. So it is reasonable to say all doors, especially in light of 1010.1. But are all doors, leading from an occupied space to the exterior, that meet the requirements for exiting to be considered exits? In this case, they are exits based on the designers choice to include them in exit capacity, so that question is answered.
I’m modifying what I originally said. I said the exit doors look immediately visible and therefore no sign is required, but the second sentence in the main part of 1013.1 applies to the path, not the door, as noted below. The sign can still be omitted by using Exception 2 which requires approval of the building official.
No, Exception 2 is speaking to the door, the main language speaks to the path to the door:
That’s a good question. I would say it’s the designer’s choice, as you noted, if the door is included in the calculation for egress capacity it is an exit.
I had a tenant fit up where there was one of these non-required exits that were signed. I asked if they were going to keep the exit sign and we discussed that if it is signed as an exit it must function as an exit and that might impact future use of the space. They decided to keep it and 6 months later I got another permit application to remove the sign because they were trying to re-configure the space and the door was in the way.
Agreed and understood. But it is the commentary that introduces, as an example, the idea that the main exit is the main entrance, when entrance isn't part of the code text. It would be easy to equate a main entry with a main exit especially when the commentary mentions entry no less than 4 times in the single paragraph for the exception but a lot of exits are not entries, for various reasons. walker.t did it in his post, I have done it, I'm sure others have done it, but entrance is not part of the code in this case. If the code intended that only a main entrance door is qualified to serve as a main exit, it should say so, but I don't think that is the intent, even if the only example uses suggests it. But I am wrong more than I am right, so who knows.
I think this provision lets you apply 1013.1 even if you have only one door:
I think it’s also understood that both the designer and building official will be reasonable in their subjective determination, per Exception 2 the building official’s discretion wins if there’s a disagreement.
Yes, code says “doors,” I just used “door” because I was referring to the one main door for this project.
No, you have made a reasonable assessment of the plan and believe that the main entrance door is “obviously and clearly identifiable,” Exception 2 allows you do make that determination.
Good point, I didn’t even notice I did that, we are talking about exit signs, not entrance signs, yet I referred to the “main entrance door.” But I think you’re correct that the intent is not that the exit must be an entrance as well - even the commentary in #13 did it, “The entrance is centrally located within the building. These main exterior exit doors…”.
