Egress from an occupied roof-what would you do?

[Sifu]

Roof deck #1: An occupied roof deck (44 occupants), accessed by two different tenants from doors within each space. Once on the roof, the occupant must travel back into the interior of the building to egress out. Each door is equipped with a rim cylinder lock. IBC 1010.1.9.4 requires any egress door to be usable without a key or special knowledge, except by the use of a key, lock indicator and signage for the main door only (exc. #1). This section doesn't seem to apply to this configuration, as evidenced by the fact that these are not the main doors, and by exc. #6 (not an occupied roof) and by the inclusion of this specific type of scenario in the 2021 IBC with added provisions. For security reasons I understand the configuration, but I could foresee an entrapment issue if the doors automatically lock when they close. However, I am unsure of how to administer this code under the 2018 IBC, other than to ignore the security aspect and require free egress from the roof. What would you do?

Roof deck #2: On the other side of this same building is another occupied roof (94 occupants) accessed by one tenant and from the exterior one story below (at grade) with one exit access being the exterior stairway to grade, and the other by a door back into the building, swinging in, with panic hardware. They list that door as being electronically locked by 1010.1.9.9 or 1010.1.9.10. Either would appear to meet the code for egress from the roof, but not offer security from the exterior. Not sure how to address that either, other than to ask them to clarify this. If they had an additional door onto this roof deck, outswing with panic, I think both security and egress can be accomplished, but since this meets the code for egress without the additional door, I think I can leave it alone as long as it is clear that the upper door, leading back into the building must provide free egress off the roof back into the building. What would you do?

It is pretty obvious they will find a way to lock the doors into the tenant spaces for security, but this would interrupt egress from the roof decks. None of the doors to the roof, from the interior are required for egress from the interior spaces.

 

[steveray]

ignore security...Although I am not sure what exception 6 is.....I know the are expanding the "main door" locking too...look at 2021?

 

[Sifu]

Exception #6 says you can lock an unoccupied roof, and 2021 does have provisions for locking an occupied roof. I am not crazy about them because they would allow up to 300 occupants, though there are specific provisions to do so which I guess makes it ok. Ignoring security is where I am, however I think it I may be burying my head in the sand because I know they will lock those doors. I hate putting that out there for the FD to catch on inspection, or worse yet when they get to respond to someone being locked on the roof.

 

[steveray]

Have the discussion with the FD and have them stress to the owner what the penalties for blocking or restricting an exit would be?

 

[north star]

@ % @

Sifu, ...can you place a Mag-Lock on the interior
side of the egress doors, along with a "Release Button"
on the interior side to allow exiting, and a Badge
Reader on the exterior side of the door for security
purposes ?.........I know of some military facilities that
have this very configuration.........Security from the exterior
and egress from the interior are both accomplished.

@ % @

 

[Sifu]

I am going to make the comment, and see what discussions result from it. This may take a back seat to the "provide an accessible route" comment. I will suggest that there is a '21 provision for these hardware situations and that an AMMR could be requested of the CBO based on it.

 

[Yikes]

North star has the right design approach in post #5. The mag release can also be connected to the fire alarm system to fail-safe in an unlocked position.