• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Visible Exit?

I think the pattern is distracting enough to hide them if they were the main exit doors. They're probably OK if there are more exits than the minimum requirement, and are just marked EXIT because they lead to an exit access.
 
pattern is distracting, are there emergency heads which would help lead one to these doors? are those "panic paddles" on the doors? i couldn't tell from the photo/pattern ( how's that for a non answer)
 
I'm not sure what helps the building occupants find the exits, but the doors appear to have deadbolts. They're not in the US so they may have different rules for panics in the UK.
 
If they were installed in the US under the IBC, I would say they do not comply:

Section 1008.1 (in part): "Means of egress doors shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors."
 
Would not meet NFPA 101 or 1 either:

7.10.1.2.1 Exits, other than main exterior exit doors that obviously and clearly are identifiable as exits, shall be marked by an approved sign that is readily visible from any direction of exit access.
Click to expand...
AND
7.10.1.8 Visibility. Every sign required in Section 7.10 shall be located and of such size, distinctive color, and design that it is readily visible and shall provide contrast with decorations, interior finish, or other signs. No decorations, furnishings, or equipment that impairs visibility of a sign shall be permitted. No brightly illuminated sign (for other than exit purposes), display, or object in or near the line of vision of the required exit sign that could detract attention from the exit sign shall be permitted.
Click to expand...
Interesting conversations in the most recent 101 MOE TC meeting on this exact subject matter and the old red/green color issues and the exact intent of destinctive color and design.
 
Based on the quotes from FM William Burns, I would say the IBC is much clearer in its requirements.

The first quote states that exits other than main exits be only "marked by an approved sign." The second quote only refers to the visibility of the sign itself and not the door.

If these are the only requirements in NFPA 101, then I would say the example complies with NFPA 101.
 
Under normal circumstances, this would not fly in our AHJ as an MOE Exit/Exit Access door being readily distinguishable. On the other hand, I am willing to listen to arguments for and against based upon use and required moe.
 
Acceptable.

I concur with RLGA, the signage itself is clearly distinct.

In addition to having "typical" exit signage above the pair of doors, each leaf is individually labeled at an intermediate level (say about the elevation of an ADA-compliant peephole).

The only additional signage based on comments may be text such as "PUSH HERE" or "PUSH TO EXIT" on the panic bar to satisfy the local AHJ.
 
RLGA said:
If they were installed in the US under the IBC, I would say they do not comply:Section 1008.1 (in part): "Means of egress doors shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors."
Click to expand...
I agree under the IBC the doors shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes ....does not comply.
 
Whew! I have a headache from looking at that!

On your blog someone comments that it appears to be double acting pair of doors. As I look closely (thus the source of the headache) there certainly appears to be:

1) Pull bars on the push side of the door marked EXIT

2) Light showing through at top of door

3) What very much appears to be HERCULITE pivots

Add this up, and I get double acting doors.

There must be more to this story that assaults the senses.
 
You guys are awesome and I always appreciate your input. I don't like to tell someone that they have to go ask their AHJ...I'd rather be able to find something specific in the codes to answer their question because most people think AHJs are scary. :eek: But sometimes I guess that's the only answer. It's amazing to me that we have had so many discussions about doors that ended without a consensus.
 
RLGA said:
If they were installed in the US under the IBC, I would say they do not comply:Section 1008.1 (in part): "Means of egress doors shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors."
Click to expand...
I stopped reading after this section. It's pretty clear in my mind. Wouldn't meet the code in the U.S.
 
what happens to the visablity doors if and when the light level is reduce, smoke obscure the sig, now they will be even harder to destingush.
 
RLGA said:
Based on the quotes from FM William Burns, I would say the IBC is much clearer in its requirements. The first quote states that exits other than main exits be only "marked by an approved sign." The second quote only refers to the visibility of the sign itself and not the door.

If these are the only requirements in NFPA 101, then I would say the example complies with NFPA 101.
Click to expand...




Sorry RLGA………. I got hung up by the pink and black decorative doors and European signage and thought about the signage only since I didn’t know if this was a main exit or secondary from the assembly space. The original inquiry was on the exit’s visibility so forgive me, this would clearly be a deficiency with:





7.1.10.2.1 No furnishings, decorations, or other objects shall obstruct exits or their access thereto, egress therefrom, or visibility thereof.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE] and



7.2.1.1.1 A door assembly in a means of egress shall conform to the general requirements of Section 7.1 and to the special requirements of 7.2.1. 7.2.1.1.2 Every door opening and every principal entrance that is required to serve as an exit shall be designed and constructed so that the path of egress travel is obvious and direct. Windows that, because of their physical configuration or design and the materials used in their construction, have the potential to be mistaken for door openings shall be made inaccessible to the occupants by barriers or railings.
Click to expand...


This is a code forum and there are other codes that come into play when talking about egress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK - here's a follow-up question. Does it matter whether the exit is the main exit or a secondary exit? Would the requirements for one be different from the other when it comes to visibility?
 
LGreene said:
OK - here's a follow-up question. Does it matter whether the exit is the main exit or a secondary exit? Would the requirements for one be different from the other when it comes to visibility?
Click to expand...
No .
 
It's either an exit, or it's not. If it is not required, don't make it partially comply. JMHO
 
mark handler said:
No .
Click to expand...
I didn't think so, but FMWB's reply mentioned main vs. secondary and 101 used the words "principal entrance." It's very common for architects to tell me that they want a certain door locked except on fire alarm and that it's ok because it's a secondary exit. I have never found anything that would allow secondary exits to be only unlocked on fire alarm so I use delayed egress if it's an acceptable occupancy type or an alarm only.
 
fatboy said:
It's either an exit, or it's not. If it is not required, don't make it partially comply. JMHO
Click to expand...
We've had the discussion of "if it looks like an exit does it have to perform like an exit" before, and I think we ended up in a stalemate. In fact, I think we've talked about it more than once.

Here's one where we talked about whether a door needs panic hardware if it's serving an Assembly occupancy but isn't a required exit:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?3835-Panic-Hardware

And here's one about whether it's ok to lock a door that's not a required exit:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?2580-Bars-Across-Non-Required-Exterior-Doors

And I'm using the word "exit" in the more generic sense, not as defined by the codes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top