How far can a device or a project screen in an adult educational classroom project out in the aisle or a corridor?
Should not be impeding the exit way.
Without seeing what the set up is and the obstruction, hard to give a good answer.
Can you rephrase the question.
Where do the aisles go to?
How many seats/ tables/ desks are in the room
One exit or two?
Thank you, Cda! I learned that projections from a wall cannot exceed 4 inches.
Per this section of the 2018 NFPA 101,
184.108.40.206* Maintenance. Means of egress shall be continuously maintained free of all obstructions or impediments to full instant use in the case of fire or other emergency
the screen can not project into the aisle or corridor. NFPA 101 has no other allowances for projections of this kind into the means of egress.
Noted; thank you Mr. Werner!
"I learned that projections from a wall cannot exceed 4 inches."
Could you give us your thoughts of where in NFPA 101 this was found. It may be good information for someone else who reads your post.
Thanks for your kind words.
I assume she's referring to the ADA, which limits projections into circulation paths, between 27" AFF and 80" AFF, to 4" max. For instance a Fire Extinguisher Cabinet in a corridor must be fully recessed or semi-recessed (protruding less than 4" into the corridor). If you wanted to do a surface mounted cabinet it would have to move out of the circulation path.
Your assumption may be correct and good point for discussion. I agree the facility may by affected the federal law have to meet the ADA guidelines if funded by federal dollars.
In my opinion, the owner is not improving the building safety by installing projecting devices on the corridor walls without justification the measurement of the means of egress for the calculation of the capacity of the means of egress and otherwise the required minimum clear width prescribed in the code was sufficient for the occupant load. The classroom use of the building indicates a denser occupant load factor. Therefore, the calculation of the capacity is an important limitation for a corridor clear width.
From the context of the question, it seems to me, the owner is looking for an out in the building safety codes to justify the installation of devices.
NFPA 101 has no provisions for the building's accessibility in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
Subsection 220.127.116.11 of 2018 NFPA 101 is compulsory that, in other than existing buildings, accessible means of egress be provided for all areas accessible to persons with severe mobility impairment. The term accessible means of egress is defined in 18.104.22.168 as “a means of egress that provides an accessible route to an area of refuge, a horizontal exit, or a public way.” The term severe mobility impairment is defined in 3.3.256 as “the ability to move to stairs but without the ability to use the stairs.”
Subsection 22.214.171.124 clarifies that the requirement for accessible means of egress is not retrospectively required in existing buildings, unless specifically required by the applicable occupancy chapter.
Providing access to new buildings for persons with severe mobility impairment (see 3.3.256) triggers a need to provide accessible means of egress in accordance with 7.5.4.
The annex A not a mandatory requirement of NFPA 101 suggests:
A.126.96.36.199 An accessible means of egress should comply with the accessible route requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities.
With some certainty I could conclude that the ADA and ICC/ANSI A117.1 has no bearing on the NFPA 101 question by Rachel. Therefore the followup information request to Rachel was may conclusion.
So maybe this is a loaded question or a topic for a more global discussion, but given 188.8.131.52, are we to consider the full width of a corridor regardless of the required width? I say this with a few recent (>7 days) issues in mind.
The first was a question from a fire officer in a neighboring community who has been asked to approve or disapprove allowing chairs in the main entrance corridor to their new Municipal Offices. Like many other business type occupancies, the corridor is exit access for numerous offices, but it also serves as usable space with clerk service widows. To further add to this issue, the building was a former school, renovated to be the new Municipal Offices.
The second similar issue is in the new vocation/technical school just built in our jurisdiction, Due to the design the main corridors are far wider that required and include some off angle spaces as it's core design is shaped like an "X". The school began using some of these spaces which does nothing to diminish required egress width, but could create the fire problem in the first place, requiring the use of the corridor, which would no longer be a "clean" path to egress.
Generally, my take has been the exit corridors should be fairly clean of projections and obstructions that would prevent a visually impaired person from putting a hand on the wall and following it to the safety of an exit. Also, we want as little as possible potential fuel for fire or smoke in the clean passage to safety. But alas, the 101 Handbook speaks more about required egress width and gives examples of impediments that block required handrail access, but doesn't speak to using the walls as guidance for visually impaired persons.
The best answer yet!
Nothing should be considered a universal solution other than do not use corridor walls for other purposes other than a separating from the use areas for solely access to exits. Foremost, the accessibility standards for his component of the means of egress must be considered for every educational building. Its safety provisions outranks the minor projections to measure the means of egress in order to determine its capacity.
Retrieving data ...