• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Collaboration Corridors -Learning Spaces E Occ.

H

Hunterstank

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 1, 2022
Messages
8
Location
Utah
Just joined. Longtime lurker ...
I do plan review an look at E occupancies for general fire and live safety. Collaboration corridors have plaqued or office long before I arrived.
If it becomes accessory and intervening space to the surrounding classrooms, what leaving factor and should I subtract from that factor for the min. egress width or just require it to be unobstructed and discernible?
2018 code cycle
Tyia.
 
E occupancoes require 6 foot corridors, which can accommodate 360 occupants without sprinklers and 480 occupants with sprinklers. There shouldnt be any issue with egress capacity.
 
Sorry, I'm not sure how to upload pictures but my question revolves around the new trend to have classroom wings with 8 classrooms with 49 or less students around a collaboration space that has a stair stack on one end and exits outside and a corridor connection to the main school at the other end.
What use to be a regular corridor years ago use now a enlarged collaborating space that the classrooms where through to reach the exit or access the corridor to circulate to the next perioid class or lunch time etc.
My question is how to make sure circulation path widths are maintained. These areas get tracked and chairs on wheels that migrate daily.
We have allowed an occupant load on the intervening space but I'm wanting a reduction for circulation paths from that load. But it seems very grey?
 
On a building code forum, the term "corridor" has very specific life safety implications for fire ratings, clear width for egress, fuel loads of furniture or other non-building items in the corridor.
Educators mostly think of corridors as a missed opportunity for An informal learning/interaction space, as described in this blog post: https://blog.interface.com/corridors-as-classrooms/
My first recommendation is to make sure the space is intended to function as a ‘corridor’ - - perhaps it is already designed as an intervening room, but the client wanted to name it “collaboration corridor”.

When codes for corridors in E occupancies we’re first written, a lot of middle schools and high schools had lockers where students could put all kinds of nasty stuff. In practice, "E" corridors have never been solely about ingress and egress. It’s a Hollywood trope that most teen drama/confrontation takes place in school corridors.

That said, if a corridor is going to have lounge furniture, tackboards or other elements introduced, you may ask he design professional of record (DPOR) to
1. provide a code analysis justifying the space as an intervening room, or
2. provide a code analysis justifying its use as a type of "lobby”, or
3. If it is truly a corridor, then obtain a report from a fire protection engineer showing how the fuel load is the same or less than would normally be anticipated in a traditional “E” corridor; and show how the minimum egress width will be maintained.
 
Just saw your latest post. Your intervening space is basically functioning like a giant multipurpose room. If you question is solely about maintaining egress width, then you approach it the same way as any other multipurpose room:
1. Have them provide a proposed egress path of travel on the plans.
2. Ha e them provide maximum proposed furniture layouts (tables, chairs, and aisles in between) so that you and the fire official can pre-approve specific setups for the school to use. This will also show where the furniture is stored when not in use.
3. Have them add a note on the plans that any alternate layouts not shown will first need to be reviewed by the building and fire department prior to implementation.

No one but a uilding owner/operator can always ‘ensure" exit paths are maintained in any building. ( How many times have I seen a trash can on a stairwell landing?) All you can do during the design/plancheck phase is force them to show how they intend to furnish the space to maintain access paths once the building is complete.

Although you cannot enforce this next comment: some designers will intentionally change the finish flooring type or color In the areas to be maintained free and clear for exiting. Example: VCT on the exit pat, carpet in the collaboration areas.
 
Yes, I have 8 classrooms tied to a large multi purpose/intervening space, where the classrooms all have secondary sliding door/wall section to open up to the intervening space.
They have designed to do that at the 75' common path limit is where you either can reach the exit outside or the corridor begins with double doors that connect to the main school corridor.
I asked for a furniture plan and they lost their mind. I asked for a hashed circulation path and they came back showing 44 inches.
I was expecting to see 72 inches with ties to the upper stair landing and 36 inch ties from each classroom door to the hashed circulation path.
I review at the SFMO and most big school district's have designers and inspectors that overlook these areas so or field inspectors fight it annually. Thx
 
Hunterstank said:
Yes, I have 8 classrooms tied to a large multi purpose/intervening space, where the classrooms all have secondary sliding door/wall section to open up to the intervening space.
They have designed to do that at the 75' common path limit is where you either can reach the exit outside or the corridor begins with double doors that connect to the main school corridor.
I asked for a furniture plan and they lost their mind. I asked for a hashed circulation path and they came back showing 44 inches.
I was expecting to see 72 inches with ties to the upper stair landing and 36 inch ties from each classroom door to the hashed circulation path.
I review at the SFMO and most big school district's have designers and inspectors that overlook these areas so or field inspectors fight it annually. Thx
Click to expand...

IF they are only providing 44" clear, it's not an "E" corridor, it's an intervening room.
8 classrooms x 49 students = 392 occupants
392 x 0.15 = 58.8 inches for exit width in the intervening rooms.
If they want to treat it as a corridor, then 72" is the minimum width for "E" occupancies.

When treating the "collaboration" corridor as an intervening room, that room should also have its own occupant load in addition to the classroom load (because in my opinion the egress path width should be based on the assumption that all 8 classroom AND the collaboration space is occupied at the same time).
In my opinion, they also need to show required accessibility clearances around the door openings.

In our California Building Code, all this falls under CBC 107.2.1 "Information on construction documents."

From the architect's perspective, they probably aren't being paid to design every conceivable furniture layout, so that's probably what's causing them heartburn. I get that. But just like with any other multipurpose room, they have to be able to state all the proposed functions per Table 1004.5, and design the MOE path based on the worst-case / highest-occupancy. Then you inform the owner that any furniture layouts not shown on the plans will be subject to final inspection and approval by the local fire official. Even if they are keeping the classroom MOE paths clear, 1018.1 describes how furnishings placement creates aisles in the other collaboration spaces, and those are subject to final approval.
Multipurpose furniture plans can be reviewed now during plan check, or the school can take their chances by purchasing and installing furnishings "at risk" and then finding out afterward whether the fire official thinks it meets code or not.
 
That sounds like what I have been asking for...
We place a load factor of 50 net on the usable square footage in the collaboration space but the area is used after every class change for students to relocate and the clear circulation needs to be identified.
I appreciate your reply. Thx
 
This is well answered by the others, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway... As a school architect in Florida, me and my competitors show furniture layouts (even though someone else usually does the actual selection & design) and we delineate in the plans (i.e. dashing, hatching, etc.) the egress path vs the collaboration space/ break out space/ debrief space/ latest educational trend space. Robotics/ Computer hardware labs are tricky because there is lots of stuff, not always 'furniture' and usually not selected until after design, but we still show something.

Luckily for me, the school districts I work in have building departments in house, and they're involved from day one, which has taught me the positives of putting as much info as possible in the LS sheets. It helps the designer as much as it helps the reviewer.
 
Yikes said:
.

When treating the "collaboration" corridor as an intervening room, that room should also have its own occupant load in addition to the classroom load (because in my opinion the egress path width should be based on the assumption that all 8 classroom AND the collaboration space is occupied at the same time).
In my opinion, they also need to show required accessibility clearances around the door openings.
Click to expand...

The students using the collaboration corridor are the same students in the classrooms, adding additional occupants for the collaboration corridor goes against the concept of a net occupant load calculation used for schools.
 
Tim Mailloux said:
The students using the collaboration corridor are the same students in the classrooms, adding additional occupants for the collaboration
Click to expand...
Partially. There's nothing that says students from another wing can't be invited to the collaboration space? Or parents and grandparents etc.
This space gets most hazardous when the bell rings for every class change and students migrate through a space with tables, chairs, garbage cans and modular seats that are on wheels.
 
Tim Mailloux said:
The students using the collaboration corridor are the same students in the classrooms, adding additional occupants for the collaboration corridor goes against the concept of a net occupant load calculation used for schools.
Click to expand...
If you’re not treating it as a corridor and are instead calling it an "intervening room", then it makes sense to at least size the MOE a system accordingly. I hear what you’re saying about it being a complementary use, and maybe you don;t need to base your plumbing fixture count on it, but as post #17 says, there’s no guarantee it won’t be used for a different purpose.

I once worked a similar building on an elementary school campus. On hot days, students from other buildings would do their P.E. class in the central multipurpose area, while the surrounding classrooms were also in session, thus, all spaces were occupied simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top