Home
Store
Membership
Codes, Standards & Guidelines
Education
Certification & Testing
 
 

Bulletin Board Archive

Bookmark and Share
ICC Bulletin Board   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» ICC Bulletin Board » Code Chat » Building and Residential Codes -- Non-Structural Issues » Exit enclosure v. Travel Distance

   
Author Topic: Exit enclosure v. Travel Distance
inspector/firefighter
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
4
 - posted      Profile for inspector/firefighter           Edit/Delete Post 
Given a B occupancy with occupant load of 20 and only one exit, the maximum travel distance to the exit is 75 feet, as measured along the path of egress from any point in the building. There is a entry vestibule which reduces the travel distance to less than 75 feet, however the exterior door the the public way is slightly greater than 75 feet. If the vestibule is constructed as one-hour fire resistive with 20 minute labeled doors, has travel distance been met or do they have to be completely of of the building? Is the travel distance measured from the most remote part within a room, or from the doorway serving that room? Maximum distance as I measure is 82 feet from any point in this building to the exterior door. 73 feet the the vesitbule door but still seems to exceed travel distance for 1 exit. Any comments?
Posts: 578 | From: Kendallville, IN USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
From definition of Exit: "Exits include exterior exit doors at ground level, exit enclosures, exit passageways, exterior exit stairs, exterior exit ramps and horizontal exits."

Get the occupants to an enclosure constructed in accordance with 1020 or 1021, within the required 75' distance, and you're golden. You don't need to get them all the way outside the building.

The measurement should be from the most remote point within the most remote room, and should be measured along a path that would avoid typical obstructions. Most measure the distance at right angles.

Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
IJHumberson
Frequent Contributor


Rate Member
 - posted      Profile for IJHumberson           Edit/Delete Post 
However, the required minimum rating for fire doors in exit enclosures (exit passageway in this case) is 1-hour, not 20 minute. (Per Table 715.4, '09 Ed.). Additionally, a typical vestibule is not constructed as an exit enclosure, which prohibits duct penetrations other than stair pressurization and self-contained HVAC systems (1022.4, '09 Ed.)

--------------------
Ivan J. Humberson, P.E.

Posts: 109 | From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
Correct.

The tenant would also have to understand that blocking that door open would be prohibited.

Overall, my opinion of this option is poor. Better to design the building a little less deep or provide additional exiting. An exit passageway common to all tenants along the back of the building would be an option . . .

Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
inspector/firefighter
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
4
 - posted      Profile for inspector/firefighter           Edit/Delete Post 
The tenant space is 40 feet wide x 80 feet deep and will operate as a banking institute. They have indicated they do not want another exit due to safety concerns? I felt exiting was a safety concern. The design professional thought 100 feet travel distance was the requirement when we first discussed the project, then found out the space is not sprinklered. When I saw the vestibule with no fire-resistive features, I wanted to check with an expert panel to see if there was something I was missing. Sounds like I might have been on target with the requirements. Thanks to everyone.
Posts: 578 | From: Kendallville, IN USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
if the occupant load was 30, you be allowed 100 foot travel distance. is this all B, or B and S-1. If all B, gross floor area would put you over by two

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
inspector/firefighter
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
4
 - posted      Profile for inspector/firefighter           Edit/Delete Post 
Kilitact- You threw me when you said 100 feet for B occupancies. This only applies if the buildng is protected with automatic sprinklers correct? Otherwise the 75 feet still applies if I read the footnotes of Tab 1019.2 correctly.
Posts: 578 | From: Kendallville, IN USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
mtlogcabin
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
4
 - posted      Profile for mtlogcabin           Edit/Delete Post 
Kilitact is correct if occupant load is less than 30. Placement of the door is critical to the travel distance. A 40 X 80 building measuring travel distance at right angles should equate to 100 to 120 feet of travel distance from the most remote point in the building.

1014.3 Common path of egress travel.
Exceptions:

2. Where a tenant space in Group B, S and U occupancies has an occupant load of not more than 30, the length of a common path of egress travel shall not be more than 100 feet (30 480 mm)

[ 09-04-2009, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: mtlogcabin ]

--------------------
If you buy the statement you buy the underlying assumption.

Posts: 919 | From: Montana | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vegas Paul
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
5
 - posted      Profile for Vegas Paul           Edit/Delete Post 
A 40 x 80 space isn't going to work with a CPET of 75 or 100 ft. Even without seeing the layout, the typical way of measuring travel distance is right angles, so there is likely a position in the space that is nearly 120 ft. away from the exit - could be more depending on the travel path.

75 ft is the limit for CPET for B's that are unsprinkled. No increase for low occupant load.

--------------------
CBO, MCP, LEED AP

Posts: 748 | From: North Las Vegas, NV | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
Looking at Section 1014.3 ex.2

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
EPrice
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
5
 - posted      Profile for EPrice           Edit/Delete Post 
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page here, there are two separate but similar requirements in the code: Exit access travel distance in Section 1016 and common path of egress travel in 1014.3. Because of the reference to a limit of 75 feet, I believe the OP is referring to the later requirement.

quote:
A 40 x 80 space isn't going to work with a CPET of 75 or 100 ft. Even without seeing the layout, the typical way of measuring travel distance is right angles, so there is likely a position in the space that is nearly 120 ft. away from the exit - could be more depending on the travel path.
Hard to say without seeing the layout, but if the exit were located at the center of an 80' long wall it seems to me that the distance from the farthest corner of the space would be more like 80'.

quote:
75 ft is the limit for CPET for B's that are unsprinkled. No increase for low occupant load.
Are you saying that 1014.3 exception 2 does not apply?
Posts: 636 | From: North Logan, UT | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
The sections are similar, the strictest applies, and specific trumps general. In this case, 1019.2 trumps 1014.3. It isn't that the exception doesn't apply, it is that a more specific section has a more restrictive requirement.

The absolute minimum number you'll come up with if the exit is in the middle of the 40' wall is 100'. In that situation, you must travel 80' along one wall, then turn and travel 20' to the exit. This is assuming an open floor plan with no interior walls, which isn't likely in a bank.

Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
mtlogcabin
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
4
 - posted      Profile for mtlogcabin           Edit/Delete Post 
Start in 1019.2
1019.2 Buildings with one exit.
Only one exit shall be required in buildings as described below:

#3 sends us to 1015.1
3. Single-level buildings with the occupied space at the level of exit discharge provided that the story or space complies with Section 1015.1 as a space with one means of egress.

1015.1 Exit or exit access doorways required.
Two exits or exit access doorways from any space shall be provided where one of the following conditions exists:

The occupant load is less than 49 so # 1 is met
1. The occupant load of the space exceeds the values in Table 1015.1.


2. The common path of egress travel exceeds the limitations of Section 1014.3.

1014.3 exception 2 states
2. Where a tenant space in Group B, S and U occupancies has an occupant load of not more than 30, the length of a common path of egress travel shall not be more than 100 feet (30 480 mm).

The OP asked
Is the travel distance measured from the most remote part within a room, or from the doorway serving that room?

From the most remote part in the room that is why most of us think you can't even make it with a 100 foot CPOT.

--------------------
If you buy the statement you buy the underlying assumption.

Posts: 919 | From: Montana | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
That's what I get for not reading the charging language for the table . . .

Sorry, Greg, Chapter 10 still sucks!

Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
Table 1019.2 allows one exit in a 1 story building of A, B, F, M, U occupancy with 49 occupants; fully sprinkle to have a travel distance of 100 feet. Section 1014.3, Exception 2 allows a tenet space with 30 occupants a travel distance of 100 feet. If you have 30 or fewer occupants, travel distance can be 100 feet, if occupants load of 49 and sprinkler in accordance with NFPA 13, 100 foot of travel distance. Different occupant load. One code section has an increased occupant load. I would say that if the occupant load was the same in both sections, than Table 1019.2 is more specific, otherwise we’re comparing apples to tomatoes. Most, if not all banks that I’ve reviewed, require 1 exit, most have storage areas and occupant load and travel distance is not exceeded.

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
inspector/firefighter
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
4
 - posted      Profile for inspector/firefighter           Edit/Delete Post 
Certainly not trying to trick anyone, the actual building dimensions of inside space is 77'4" x 38'4" giving an area of 292964 and an occupant load of 30 person. Given that, I can see where 1014 exc. #2 could apply if there were 2 exits provided from the space based on the definition of common path of egress travel. Since there is only 1 exit provided, I believe that Tab 1019.2 is the applicable section. Not trying to be petty with the design proffessional, just trying to be thorough.
I believe that 75 feet is the maximum travel distance from the most remote part of the building to get to a 1-hour fire resistive enclosure (vestibule) protected by 20-minute door (2006 IBC - Table 715.4). Still confused, but learning from these comments that there may be another view.

Posts: 578 | From: Kendallville, IN USA | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
inspector/firefighter; I would disagree, I can travel up to 100 feet before I need two exits in this senerio

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
codeteacher
Contributor


Rate Member
 - posted      Profile for codeteacher           Edit/Delete Post 
What I am struggling with is the 1 hour rating. Horizontal exits are 2 hours and exit passageways would be 1 hour since there are no connected stair enclosures.

What is the difference between horizontal exits and exit passageways?

Once occupants are in that 1 hour rated whatever you want to call it(exit passageway), there should be no other functions occuring in that space. (Treat it like a stair enclosure or two hour rated compliance with horizontal exit provisions are required.

Posts: 75 | From: chitown | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Inspector Gift
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for Inspector Gift           Edit/Delete Post 
Kilitact wrote:
quote:
"If all B, gross floor area would put you over by two"
"Two"? How so? Please explain.

--------------------
A friend in the Building Codes,
TERRE GIFT

"Build it well, whatever you do. Build it Strong, Straight, and True...."

Posts: 1281 | From: Oregon and Washington | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Chas A
Contributor


Rate Member
 - posted      Profile for Chas A           Edit/Delete Post 
Permit guy got it right. I would add that CPET is not applicable if you have only one exit. Also read the definition of common path......
Posts: 30 | From: ID. | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
40x80=3200 divided by 100=32


quote:
CPET is not applicable if you have only one exit
????????

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
Kil - He provided more precise measurements to show the occupant load is 29.

Everyone - mtlogcabin posted the correct sequence of code language to justify that 100' travel distance is acceptable without sprinklers in this case. See his last post. I couldn't find any holes in his logic.

Chas - CPET is applicable in all cases to the extent that it can drive the requirement for a second exit where it wouldn't be required otherwise.

Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chas A
Contributor


Rate Member
 - posted      Profile for Chas A           Edit/Delete Post 
I have also gone thru mtlogcabins sequence and would agree that you could get to the 100' travel distnace, but would go with the intent of 1019.2 in that this is for a building with one exit compared to a space as 1015.1 references.

Interesting that in all this time i have not chosen to see it any other way. [Smile]

Posts: 30 | From: ID. | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
permitguy; even with the revised numbers I come up with 30 occ. I supposed if you round down or count partial people than 29.3 but thanks for pointing that out.

Chas A; perhaps you could enlighted this person as to how you get past what appears to be a code requirement.

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
I round up, I just forgot what his number was. In any case, it's still "not more than 30".
Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chas A
Contributor


Rate Member
 - posted      Profile for Chas A           Edit/Delete Post 
Kilitact; Like i said i would go with (enforce 1019.2 because it's intent is for buildings with one exit- not spaces as per 1015.1. However if you look at item #3 in 1019.2 it sends you to 1015.1 to determine compliance, and item #2 in 1015.1 sends you to 1014.3 (assuming all other items in 1015.1 are met) and exception #2 allows 100' common path of egress.

That would not be my approach, but as others have stated, it is possible to get to that conclusion.

Posts: 30 | From: ID. | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
genebko
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
5
 - posted      Profile for genebko           Edit/Delete Post 
I still don't see why you round up when counting occupants since you can't count part of a person as a whole individual. I'd go with the occupant load of 29.

Clear and simple, the 100ft CPRT works.

[ 09-04-2009, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: genebko ]

--------------------
"We are the people our parents warned us about" - Jimmy Buffett

Posts: 1067 | From: Saint Louis, MO | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
You can't count part of a person as no individual, either. [Smile]
Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vegas Paul
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
5
 - posted      Profile for Vegas Paul           Edit/Delete Post 
The occupant load factor for a bank is NOT 100 sq. ft. per person!!! The occupancy classification (B) has NOTHING to do with the occupant load factor. See table 1004.1.1. Use the FUNCTION of each space, not the occupancy classification. Since any bank has a queueing area or lobby (5 sq. ft. per person) and maybe a sitting area (7 sq. ft.) or tables & chairs (15 sq. ft.) then the occupant load is the SUM of the individual areas, by FUNCTION.

No bank has a total occupant load factor of 100 sq. ft per person, unless it is drive-up only, with tellers inside.

At the risk of repeating myself... occupant load is NOT dependent upon occupancy classification, it is determined by the function of the space(s).

--------------------
CBO, MCP, LEED AP

Posts: 748 | From: North Las Vegas, NV | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
permitguy
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for permitguy           Edit/Delete Post 
True dat.
Posts: 2576 | From: Metro Denver, CO | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
codeteacher
Contributor


Rate Member
 - posted      Profile for codeteacher           Edit/Delete Post 
If you need the rating because of long travel distances, check the rating. May still need two hours.
See my previous post on this topic.

Posts: 75 | From: chitown | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


ICC Home Page

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3