Revolving door

[Sifu]

I have an interior revolving door inside a third floor office (that occupies the entire floor) that provides circulation from a tenant's foyer to the inside of the tenant space. There is also a path around the perimeter of the space without a door that leads to the same foyer. The use of the revolving door is not required for access to the stair because the occupant can either go around it or to a different stair. Per IBC 1010.1 all MOE doors must comply with the requirements. I am pretty sure there is not an exemption from the requirements of 1010.1.4.1 but I need to check my assumptions. EATD, CPET are fine going around it, and there are two other enclosed stairs at either end of the building.

 

[e hilton]

Looks like it’s the shortest distance for Kurt & Matt to get to the exit.

 

[Yikes]

sifu - Are you saying that the use of the revolving door is for convenience only, and the revolving door is not a required to achieve a code-compliant means of egress?

 

[RLGA]

Section 1010.1 (first paragraph, last sentence): "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section."

Note that this sentence does not mention "means of egress" but just "egress." The revolving door is not a door into a storage closet, a janitor closet, a mechanical room, etc. The door is provided for passage. Since the single word "egress" is not defined by the IBC, we are left to its "ordinarily accepted meaning" (IBC Section 201.4). According to an online dictionary, it means "the action of going out of or leaving a place." Since it is there for passage from one space to another, it is an "egress" but is not a required "means of egress." Thus, in my opinion, Section 1010.1.4.1 would apply.

 

[e hilton]

Section 1010.1 (first paragraph, last sentence): "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section."

Put a sign on the door: “Entry only, not an exit”

 

[RLGA]

Put a sign on the door: “Entry only, not an exit”

I assume the door works in both directions, so, either way, it is an egress door.

Regardless, installing a revolving door in this situation is ridiculous unless it is an existing condition. If it is an existing condition, then it might be considered acceptable just for its novelty (assuming it is historic or iconic).

 

[steveray]

Is there a particular section they are looking for relief from?

1010.1.4.1.2 Other than egress component. A
revolving door used as other than a component of a
means of egress shall comply with Section
1010.1.4.1. The breakout force of a revolving door
not used as a component of a means of egress shall
not be more than 180 pounds (801 N).

 

[Sifu]

I assume the door works in both directions, so, either way, it is an egress door.

Regardless, installing a revolving door in this situation is ridiculous unless it is an existing condition. If it is an existing condition, then it might be considered acceptable just for its novelty (assuming it is historic or iconic).

It is a little ridiculous, I imagine it is just a whim of an owner who thinks it will be neat. I expect it will disappear when the swing door has to go in beside it. And I agree that it is an egress door. It has always been my belief that any door from any occupied space is an egress door. Just figured I would make sure.

 

[Sifu]

sifu - Are you saying that the use of the revolving door is for convenience only, and the revolving door is not a required to achieve a code-compliant means of egress?

Yes. But I would call it an inconvenience door.