horizontal exit area of refuge 1026.4

[Tim Mailloux]

I have a one way horizontal exit, the horizontal exit double doors have a capacity of 455 people but I only have 225 people exiting thru them, in one direction only. But according to 1026.4 the size of the refuge area is to be based on the capacity of the doors, not the egress load thru those doors. This is going to result in an area of refuge twice as large as it needs to be. I could reduce the size of the doors to a capacity more inline with the egress load, but architecturally we want these double doors to match all the other pairs of double doors in the area.

on second thought.....These doors will be on hold opens, what if one leaf had no hardware so it couldn't be used for exiting, then only the leaf with hardware would get counted into the capacity calculation and area of refuge sizing.

 

[RLGA]

If you're using the 2018 IBC, I wrote a code proposal that was accepted that the refuge area is based on the capacity of the doors or the occupant load of the adjacent area, whichever is smaller. If that's still too big for you, then your "second thought" could work if one leaf latches in place with no exit device hardware.

 

[steveray]

Second thought....But that sounds like a good code change on Ron's part...

 

[Tim Mailloux]

If you're using the 2018 IBC, I wrote a code proposal that was accepted that the refuge area is based on the capacity of the doors or the occupant load of the adjacent area, whichever is smaller. If that's still too big for you, then your "second thought" could work if one leaf latches in place with no exit device hardware.

thanks, I will reach out to the state BO and ask for a code mod to use this.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

If you're using the 2018 IBC, I wrote a code proposal that was accepted that the refuge area is based on the capacity of the doors or the occupant load of the adjacent area, whichever is smaller. If that's still too big for you, then your "second thought" could work if one leaf latches in place with no exit device hardware.

Ron
I was just reading the 2018 IBC, and the revised section states that the size of the refuge area shall be based on the capacity of the doors, or the occupant load of the adjacent compartment. I take that to mean the entire occupant load of the adjacent compartment, not the people from that compartment egress thru the doors. Is that correct?

 

[RLGA]

Ron
I was just reading the 2018 IBC, and the revised section states that the size of the refuge area shall be based on the capacity of the doors, or the occupant load of the adjacent compartment. I take that to mean the entire occupant load of the adjacent compartment, not the people from that compartment egress thru the doors. Is that correct?

Correct. The problem with the previous code requirement was that it could require a refuge capacity greater than the occupant load just because the capacity of the doors permitted a higher number of occupants than actually existed. That is why I stated if that is still too much refuge area for you, then your "second thought" option might work.

For example, many horizontal exits work in both directions, so double doors with opposing swings are typically installed. Thus, each side's refuge area would be based on a single leaf because the other door would not be swinging in the direction of egress travel--much like your "second thought" option.

 

[CA code guy]

Great discussions.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Correct. The problem with the previous code requirement was that it could require a refuge capacity greater than the occupant load just because the capacity of the doors permitted a higher number of occupants than actually existed. That is why I stated if that is still too much refuge area for you, then your "second thought" option might work.

For example, many horizontal exits work in both directions, so double doors with opposing swings are typically installed. Thus, each side's refuge area would be based on a single leaf because the other door would not be swinging in the direction of egress travel--much like your "second thought" option.

Thanks for clarifying. Looks like I am going with option #2.