• 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.

Additional exit sign to non-required exit prohibited?

Mr. Inspector said:
I did not say it could not. But when it comes to accessibility, if it is a new or complete change of occupancy and the nonrequired second exit is not an accessible egress and it has an exit sign you would need a directional sign to the accessible exit or just take the exit sign(s) off.
Click to expand...
You do nothing for accessible egress in a change of occupancy...
 
The IEBC 305.4.2 A complete change of occupancy has under #3: Signage comping with section 1111 if the IBC is required. This section requires directional signs to accessible exits. This section is not under accessible egress.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
I did not say it could not. But when it comes to accessibility, if it is a new or complete change of occupancy and the nonrequired second exit is not an accessible egress and it has an exit sign you would need a directional sign to the accessible exit or just take the exit sign(s) off.
Click to expand...

Where does you code say that exit signs pointing to accessible means of egress have to be different from exit signs pointing toward non-accessible means of egress?

Hint: IBC 1112.3
 
Mr. Inspector said:
The IEBC 305.4.2 A complete change of occupancy has under #3: Signage comping with section 1111 if the IBC is required. This section requires directional signs to accessible exits. This section is not under accessible egress.
Click to expand...
Goes away in 2021....And I would argue it is almost never a complete change of occupancy.....
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Where does you code say that exit signs pointing to accessible means of egress have to be different from exit signs pointing toward non-accessible means of egress?

Hint: IBC 1112.3
Click to expand...
We might be looking at different code years. There is no section 1112 in the 2018 IBC. 2018 IBC only has directional signage in 1111.2 "Directional Signage". It does not require any directional signs to anything non-accessible.
 
Wrinkle to the discussion.

What if an exit sign leads to a path that is not sized to handle the occupants being directed to it? I have a life-safety plan with an exit path that does not count any occupant from one side of an intervening door at a fire wall. The occupants on that side have adequate exiting without it. In response to comments about missing exit signs elsewhere on the plans they added some in other locations that were not there to begin with, and purposefully not intended to be exits. So if they put up a sign, the exit discharge door will be undersized when adding any more occupants. It is an exit path, but the life-safety plans do not consider the intervening door a viable exit as any occupants would overload the door. When push comes to shove (pun intended) it is a way out. I wouldn't go as far as placing a "not an exit" sign here, but I'm not sure occupants should be directed here. WWYD?
 
A fire wall can serve as a horizontal exit. Thus, the occupants egressing through the exit door in the horizontal exit are not added to the occupant load on the other side of the horizontal exit when sizing the means of egress on the other side of the horizontal exit.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
"Not required" doesn't mean "prohibited." A non-required means of egress may not have to be marked, but if it's there and meets all requirements for a means of egress, it makes sense to mark it as a means of egress and the code certainly doesn't say you can't mark it as a means of egress.
Click to expand...
But once you do mark it, it needs to meet all the requirements and that is where it gets ugly
 
RLGA said:
A fire wall can serve as a horizontal exit. Thus, the occupants egressing through the exit door in the horizontal exit are not added to the occupant load on the other side of the horizontal exit when sizing the means of egress on the other side of the horizontal exit.
Click to expand...
I like the logic, though it is not designated as a horizontal exit it could act like one. The occupants would be protected from an event on one side if they traversed the HE but would run into a backup of people because the refuge area would not accommodate the number of occupants that could travel through the door in question. There is also not a standpipe nor a hose connection near enough to the HE.

Torn on this. I like all the exits I can get, but don't like sending occupants down a path that could back them up. I'll ask them to clarify this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top