converging occupant load

[Nicole Brooks]

I have a kids "ninja' training gym. The front of the space is reception, restrooms, and parent viewing area. The back of the space is the gym area. I used an occupant factor of 1:50 sf for the gym and got an occupant load of 56. The front of the space uses various factor loads and is 46. Because the gym needs two exit (over 50 occupants) and one of those exit paths pass through the front of the building, does that increase the load of the front space to over 50, then triggering a need for 2 exits from that space as well. I provided a double door with leaves that open in opposite directions, offering two exits from both area of the suite. The tenant does not want a double door (they only want a single) Am I interpreting the code incorrectly and would only one exit be required from the front of the suite?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You have a total occupant load of 102. You need two exits. Assuming each exit discharge door is a 36" door providing 33.5" of clear width, each exit door has a capacity of 167 people. The rear stair has a capacity of 160, which becomes the limiting factor for that means of egress. So you have sufficient capacity.

In fact, either exit will accommodate the total occupant load. As long as all parts of the gym space are within the allowable exit access travel distance, you can assign everyone in the gym to the rear exit, and everyone else to the front exit. However, better practice is to assign half the occupant load of the gym to the rear exit and the other half to the front entrance/exit. This means the occupant load using the front exit would be 46 + 28 = 74 people.

The occupant load in the front space is less than 50, so the door providing exit access to the rear exit does not need to swing in the direction of egress travel. Having a double door with opposing swing isn't a bad idea, but in this case I don't think it's necessary. The double door can be a single door, swinging toward the front entrance/exit.

 

[Sifu]

Once they reach ninja level, nobody will be able to see them leave anyway.

 

[walker.t]

then triggering a need for 2 exits from that space as well.

I don’t know if you’re using “exit” generically to mean “exits or exit access doorways” (as referenced in 1006.1) or if you are asking if you need a second exit (as defined in Chapter 2) from the front of the building (meaning a second exterior door.) Either way, I think you are already providing two means of egress out of the front of the building, the door into the gym that leads to the back door and the front door in the reception area.

The occupant load in the front space is less than 50

Yankee Chronicler’s comment responds to your question if the occupant load egressing from the gym through the front of the building is added to the original occupant load of the front of the building. Per 1006.2. Point 1: “The number of exits from foyers, lobbies, vestibules or similar spaces need not be based on cumulative occupant loads for areas discharging through such spaces, but the capacity of the exits from such spaces shall be based on applicable cumulative occupant loads.”

You have a total occupant load of 102. You need two exits. Assuming each exit discharge door is a 36" door providing 33.5" of clear width, each exit door has a capacity of 167 people. The rear stair has a capacity of 160, which becomes the limiting factor for that means of egress. So you have sufficient capacity.

In fact, either exit will accommodate the total occupant load. As long as all parts of the gym space are within the allowable exit access travel distance, you can assign everyone in the gym to the rear exit, and everyone else to the front exit. However, better practice is to assign half the occupant load of the gym to the rear exit and the other half to the front entrance/exit. This means the occupant load using the front exit would be 46 + 28 = 74 people.

The occupant load in the front space is less than 50, so the door providing exit access to the rear exit does not need to swing in the direction of egress travel. Having a double door with opposing swing isn't a bad idea, but in this case I don't think it's necessary. The double door can be a single door, swinging toward the front entrance/exit.

This entire response is good, it has useful information and extra commentary on the double door.

However, better practice is to assign half the occupant load of the gym to the rear exit and the other half to the front entrance/exit.

Yankee Chronicler’s comment that it is “better practice” to evenly split the occupant load makes me think of 1005.5 regarding how loss of one exit cannot reduce the available capacity or width to less than 50% of the required capacity or width. I’m not saying the comment violates 1005.5, just saying that was the first thing that came to mind.

I used an occupant factor of 1:50 sf for the gym and got an occupant load of 56.

Did you notice that the gym room label says the occupant load is 49? I’ve seen some life safety plans that call out the distance of the path on the plan, you probably have that in a table elsewhere. Your “Exit 1” and “Exit 2” notes are easy to read, I’ve seen a few life safety plans where they squeeze those numbers into a very small box and they’re difficult to read. If this project was more complex you could consider making tags to demonstrate your 44” aisles are sufficient. You didn’t ask for a critique of the drawing but seeing as I noticed these things I thought I’d pass them along.