# Dead end corridor within mixed occupancies



## tuzi (Jul 24, 2018)

I have a floor plate with R2, S-2, and A-2. The aggregate area of S-2 and A-2 are over 10% of the floor plate. If I take the floor as un-separated occupancies, then I know I have to follow 20' dead end as A-2 is the more stringent. I am wondering if I separate A-2 from the rest of the floor with 1-hour fire barrier with 45 min. door,  does it mean max. 50' dead end corridor for R-2 will apply or it's not the case unless aggregate area of S-2 and A-2 is under 10%?


----------



## RLGA (Jul 24, 2018)

If a corridor is serving an assembly occupancy, then you're limited to the 20-foot limit on dead-end corridors, regardless of whether or not the assembly occupancy is an accessory use. Accessory uses are still classified per the applicable occupancy group, the main exception is that you do not have to separate the accessory occupancies from the main occupancy, but all other code provisions applicable to those accessory occupancies are still required.


----------



## tuzi (Jul 24, 2018)

The corridor I circled only serves the R2, does it mean it could be max. 50 ft, although I have A-2 on this level?


----------



## RLGA (Jul 24, 2018)

The image didn't come through, but if the corridor is only serving the Group R, then yes, the longer distance for a dead end corridor would be permitted.


----------



## tuzi (Jul 24, 2018)




----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2018)

tuzi said:


>




You either have to be a paying Sawhorse to post direct

Or turn it into a link and post the link


----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2018)

While waiting for the floor plan.

Where your concern is with the dead end,

Are you required two means of exit ??


----------



## tuzi (Jul 24, 2018)




----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2018)

Add a door across the corridor in the dead end.

Not sure if you put it on a mag door holder, if it is still legal????


----------



## tuzi (Jul 24, 2018)

cda said:


> Add a door across the corridor in the dead end



That's what I did now, but I just wonder if code allows without the door.


----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2018)

tuzi said:


> That's what I did now, but I just wonder if code allows without the door.




So what is the measurement of the dead end??


----------



## tuzi (Jul 24, 2018)

I am at 48'-6". I can reduce it to under 20' by adding a door in the corridor.


----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2018)

Which edition of IBC?


----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2018)

Looks like as said by RGLA

Corridor used by assembly 

20 ft max or widen the dead end portion


----------



## tuzi (Jul 24, 2018)

2015IBC


----------



## tuzi (Jul 25, 2018)

cda said:


> Looks like as said by RGLA
> 
> Corridor used by assembly
> 
> 20 ft max or widen the dead end portion



Yeah, I think I need to add the door. 

Thanks, everybody for helps!


----------



## cda (Jul 25, 2018)

tuzi said:


> Yeah, I think I need to add the door.
> 
> Thanks, everybody for helps!




You know you can become a Sawhorse and support this great site

We have the unlimited plan, keep asking questions till you get an answer you like!!!


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 26, 2018)

Why can't you shift the doorways 20 feet forward and increase the apartment square footage?


----------



## tuzi (Aug 14, 2018)

I guess that is possible, too. Thanks,


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 14, 2018)

I assume the entire building is sprinkled so you get the 125 ft of common path of travel that would be permitted and not the 75 ft limit without sprinklers


----------



## Harrison Staab (Nov 8, 2018)

I have a project with a very similar condition flagged in plan review. This thread has been very insightful - thank you.

One (possible) solution that has been proposed is a cross corridor door at the start of the dead end.

In another thread in this forum, there seems to be conflicting takes on whether a cross-corridor door may eliminate a dead end at all:
https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/dead-end-corridor.7049/

What I would propose: a cross corridor door on magnetic hold opens to close in a fire alarm event. On the pull side (the main corridor served by A occupancy) would be signs on each door leaf "NOT AN EXIT".

Unfortunately, the commentaries I have are silent on this kind of "creative" solution, and I found few mentions in a Google search on the issue. I'll soon be reaching out to the plan reviewer directly to discuss the issue, but I'm curious to know if the use of cross-corridor doors is really an acceptable solution.


----------



## cda (Nov 8, 2018)

Welcome

So some say architects are eccentric   ??


----------



## cda (Nov 8, 2018)

Will you define your “cross corridor”


----------



## cda (Nov 8, 2018)

If you are talking about a door across the corridor, to cut down on the dead end 

That is allowed, as long as on the other side, you do not create an exiting violation.


----------



## Robert (Nov 8, 2018)

cda said:


> If you are talking about a door across the corridor, to cut down on the dead end
> 
> That is allowed, as long as on the other side, you do not create an exiting violation.



And the door shall be non-locking.


----------



## Harrison Staab (Nov 9, 2018)

I'd consider myself less eccentric and more just plain weird.

Here's a screenshot of exactly what I am considering.







In case the image doesn't work:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Atn3qX2ujl2LqD2K38cjY7M61Ev9


----------



## cda (Nov 9, 2018)

Without seeing the whole picture

Looks good

I am thinking add two or three exit signs as you walk out of the A, leading to the exterior exit


----------



## Spector_51 (Nov 9, 2018)

I will never understand dead end corridors and i have been a code official for 25 years.
1. I don't understand how the adding of a door across the corridor makes the exiting form this space any easier, less complicated, or simpler.  If anything it may complicate things.
2. I think that dead end corridors, in a facility such as the one that has been exemplified in this post, where the occupants of this building will be very familiar with the components of the means of egress is over-regulation.

Satisfy the requirement for when two exits are required and the provisions for common path of travel and I am of the opinion you should be good to go.  In most cases, at least those that i have seen or that i can conjure in my peanut sized brain, the common path of travel and dead end corridors are intimately related.

I know i am charged with enforcement of what is in the book(s) but this never sat right with me.

Of course this all goes away in high occupancy uses and where occupant are transient of in theory, "not familiar with their surroundings".


----------



## cda (Nov 9, 2018)

Spector_51 said:


> I will never understand dead end corridors and i have been a code official for 25 years.
> 1. I don't understand how the adding of a door across the corridor makes the exiting form this space any easier, less complicated, or simpler.  If anything it may complicate things.
> 2. I think that dead end corridors, in a facility such as the one that has been exemplified in this post, where the occupants of this building will be very familiar with the components of the means of egress is over-regulation.
> 
> ...



With the door added

The length of dead end is Than in compliance.

People hit the door and hopefully turn towards the proper exit. 

Without traveling down the dead end and taking the time to turn around and have to back track, 
Using more time,,,


Which they may not have.


----------



## Harrison Staab (Nov 9, 2018)

Thanks for the replies. I discussed this with a couple other more experienced architects, and while they haven't had to deal with a condition like this, they agreed it was a reasonable solution. We'll be discussing our proposal with the plan reviewer to see what he thinks.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 9, 2018)

Finally, someone pointed that out, so is it sprinklered?


----------



## Harrison Staab (Nov 9, 2018)

In my project, the building is entirely NFPA 13 sprinklered. On the upper floors in which the corridor arrangement is identical, the dead end corridors are not an issue as they exclusively serve group R-2, allowing 50'.


----------



## Harrison Staab (Nov 9, 2018)

While I'm at it, I might as well share my complete solution, with additional signage as suggested by cda. 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Atn3qX2ujl2LqD8RBJYso14gdm7H


----------



## sergoodo (Nov 10, 2018)

Negotiating an additional door does not make the egress less safe. Without the door the egress is less safe for the other occupants who may make a wrong turn at their peril. Door protects the "unaware"


----------



## Harrison Staab (Nov 20, 2018)

For those curious, a conversation with the plan reviewer on this topic affirmed that our proposed solution was acceptable. To be honest, I was surprised to hear him say that this was commonly done since I struggled to find much commentary or discussion on the condition.

Thank you to everyone who offered insight.


----------



## cda (Nov 20, 2018)

Harrison Staab said:


> For those curious, a conversation with the plan reviewer on this topic affirmed that our proposed solution was acceptable. To be honest, I was surprised to hear him say that this was commonly done since I struggled to find much commentary or discussion on the condition.
> 
> Thank you to everyone who offered insight.




Not much different than having a solid wall there


----------

