Effectively limiting a dead-end corridor length using cross-corridor doors.

[George McGerd]

There is an ICC interpretation that allows an architect or a designer to effectively limit a dead-end corridor length by installing doors across the corridor. How far can I take this? For example, I have a dead end corridor in a building with an assembly occupancy. It begins at the assembly room and ends at a building exit. For security reasons, once you enter the corridor from the assembly room the doors will automatically close and lock behind you. The corridor is 60-ft long, but the code limit is 20-ft. Can I install a series of doors (i.e., two sets) thereby creating 3 dead-end corridors in a series, each having a 20-ft length? Each of these sets of doors will be "exit only". Thanks

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Can you cite the code section and post the ICC interpretation? This was something that was often done under the BOCA code, and somewhere in the mid- to late 1990s it was specifically prohibited. Whether or not there's a door across a corridor, if it's 137 feet from the dead end to a point where an occupant has a choice between two egress routes -- putting one or two or three doors across the corridor doesn't in any way reduce the length of that common path of travel.

 

[JPohling]

if it ends at an exit how is it a dead end? sounds like you have a travel distance issue

 

[ATX]

Not the OP, but here is the ICC interpretation.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Not the OP, but here is the ICC interpretation.

Just ... WOW!

That's crazy. Fortunately, ICC interpretations (at least in my state) are not binding. That's one I would not allow, regardless of what the ICC says. As I posted above, that "solution" was thrown out 30 years ago. The logic underlying this interpretation ( The strategic location of an intervening door, which does not swing in the direction of egress travel and is not provided with exit signage, significantly increases the probability that the occupant will turn around instead of continuing beyond the door into the last section of the dead-end corridor looking for an exit.") is, IMHO, fatally flawed.

 

[JPohling]

I do not think it says what you are interpreting. The OP does not have a dead end if the corridor ends at an exit door. We use the cross corridor door as described in the interpretation on many occasions. Think of an exit corridor that passes a stair tower and continues past it to additional suites. If the continuation of the corridor exceeds the dead end corridor distance we place a cross corridor door there to terminate the corridor. the door swings in the correct direction for the suites that exit beyond the cross corridor door. no exit signs are provided.

This is not a cross corridor door that you would need to pass in order to keep going to an exit further down that is not signed as an exit. That would be a problem

 

[steveray]

 

[Paul Sweet]

One set of doors might be allowable, but the interpretation says "an intervening door" and not "multiple intervening doors". The common path of travel (IBC table 1006.2.1) will probably limit the ultimate length of the corridor.

 

[JPohling]

THE OP DOES NOT HAVE A DEAD END CORRIDOR.
"I have a dead end corridor in a building with an assembly occupancy. It begins at the assembly room and ends at a building exit."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

THE OP DOES NOT HAVE A DEAD END CORRIDOR.
"I have a dead end corridor in a building with an assembly occupancy. It begins at the assembly room and ends at a building exit."

From the description, I think I agree. A plan would be helpful.

 

[redeyedfly]

THE OP DOES NOT HAVE A DEAD END CORRIDOR.
"I have a dead end corridor in a building with an assembly occupancy. It begins at the assembly room and ends at a building exit."

OP does have a dead end corridor if the corridor continues past the exit.