1003.6 Corridor Obstructions

[Francis Vineyard]

Seeking opinions; Corridor is wider than required; installation of fixed wood benches one side of the corridor walls.

1003.6 Means of egress continuity. The path of egress travel

along a means of egress shall not be interrupted by any building

element other than a means of egress component as specified in

this chapter. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required

width of a means of egress except projections permitted by this

chapter. The required capacity of a means of egress system

shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel.

As always appreciate all of your feedbacks.

 

[mark handler]

Are the benches, as placed, an Obstruction? Maybe, Maybe not.

Is the proper corridor width maintained when people are seated in the benches?

 

[alora]

...; Corridor is wider than required; ...Obstructions shall not be placed in the required

width of a means of egress ...

I think you answered your own question by reading/quoting the code.

 

[rooster]

Are the benches, as placed, an Obstruction? Maybe, Maybe not.Is the proper corridor width maintained when people are seated in the benches?

Do you have to account for a person sitting on the bench? In which case, do you have to account for a person standing in a corridor, or a person drinking at a water fountain? It might be better to let that person know that the building's burning.

 

[mark handler]

Do you have to account for a person sitting on the bench? In which case, do you have to account for a person standing in a corridor, or a person drinking at a water fountain? It might be better to let that person know that the building's burning.

Egress is not just at a burning building.

 

[rooster]

Egress is not just at a burning building.

Point taken. I guess what I'd like to know is where does the code say a person can become an obstruction?

 

[mark handler]

If a seated person needs to move for a person to use the Corridor they are an obstruction. The code cannot define every obstruction, the code book would be the size of the library of congress

The code book relys on the person using it to have some sense, not common sense

 

[rooster]

If a seated person needs to move for a person to use the Corridor they are an obstruction. The code cannot define every obstruction, the code book would be the size of the library of congressThe code book relys on the person using it to have some sense, not common sense

What does sense have to do with the code? For crying out loud, you can have a door swing into half of the egress width. Sounds like a good way to knock someone "sense"less.

I need to know where it says that if a person encroaches on the required egress width while using an object not within the egress width, then that person is considered an obstruction and must be taken into account.

I'm not trying to be a pita, but what about the case of a water fountain? Taking into account a person in a wheelchair using a water fountain would add feet to the width. Is there a difference between someone using a chair and a water fountain?

The code cannot define every obstruction...and the designer can't account for every situation. If it's in the code, that's one thing, but if it just makes sense, then that goes in the category of good/bad designer...and it'll be up to the client to determine that.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I have always considered occupants to not be obstructions, otherwise aisles would never have the required clearances to allow for egress. However, this discussion does bring up an interesting point, in that unconscious occupants may present an obstruction to the means of egress, and it may be in the designers best interest to consider such situations. We certainly consider them for doors within series, not sure why would not consider them here too, other than the code does not specifically address the space occupants take up (i.e., assembly standing spaces, etc.). Possibly why two means of egress are required at the Common Path of Travel distance.

 

[mark handler]

You need to maintain a clear Path of travel

 

[rooster]

You need to maintain a clear Path of travel

This isn't regarding means of egress. this is accessibility which will be a different width altogether.

 

[mark handler]

This isn't regarding means of egress. this is accessibility which will be a different width altogether.

That's the problem, you MUST provide both

 

[rooster]

I have always considered occupants to not be obstructions, otherwise aisles would never have the required clearances to allow for egress. However, this discussion does bring up an interesting point, in that unconscious occupants may present an obstruction to the means of egress, and it may be in the designers best interest to consider such situations. We certainly consider them for doors within series, not sure why would not consider them here too, other than the code does not specifically address the space occupants take up (i.e., assembly standing spaces, etc.). Possibly why two means of egress are required at the Common Path of Travel distance.

Isn't the doors in a series requirement to prevent interference?

So given this example, where would it end? is the person sitting a man, woman, child? are they crossing their legs, slouching?

 

[mark handler]

You must maintain a clear means of egress (POT). The required capacity of a means of egress system shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel

 

[rooster]

That's the problem, you MUST provide both

yes, I understand this, and in many situations the egress width is much wider than the accessible path.

Where does the code say with reference to means of egress, I have to take into account the user of a building as an obstruction.

 

[texasbo]

yes, I understand this, and in many situations the egress width is much wider than the accessible path.Where does the code say with reference to means of egress, I have to take into account the user of a building as an obstruction.

It doesn't, and to require it is beyond the scope of code. If you provide benches, and provide the requisite wheelchair clearance, there is nothing whatsoever that says you must account for people sitting in those benches, provided minimum egress width and handicapped accessibility width are provided.

 

[texasbo]

I have always considered occupants to not be obstructions, otherwise aisles would never have the required clearances to allow for egress. However, this discussion does bring up an interesting point, in that unconscious occupants may present an obstruction to the means of egress, and it may be in the designers best interest to consider such situations. We certainly consider them for doors within series, not sure why would not consider them here too,

Your question

Papio Bldg Dept other than the code does not specifically address the space occupants take up

Your answer

 

[mark handler]

Even if furniture, plants, trash cans, etc items were placed outside of the required corridor width, these items will get pushed and moved during a panic situation an tripping hazards, many fire departments prohibit them.

 

[texasbo]

Even if furniture, plants, trash cans, etc items were placed outside of the required corridor width, these items will get pushed and moved during a panic situation an tripping hazards, many fire departments prohibit them.

That may be so, but it's not code. Section 1028.5, 2006 IFC even recognizes that furnishings and decorative objects will be placed, and simply says they shall not obstruct exits.

Am I surprised some FD's prohibit them? Of course not. But that's not code. I guess they could say ceiling tiles could fall out and obstruct exits too...

 

[Francis Vineyard]

So if the 2nd and last sentence of 1003.6 is comparable to 1028.4 where it deleted the permanent partition or railing to separate the required width that was in the 2006.

Then what is the purpose of the 1st sentence; "The path of egress travel along a means of egress shall not be interrupted by any building element other than a means of egress component as specified in this chapter.”? This allows other obstructions than the building elements; doors, water fountains, buttress; etc. outside of the required width?

 

[texasbo]

1028.4, 2009 IBC, A-1 occupancies?

Not sure it's really relevant here, but just looking at it, it contains the words "required clear width of the means of egress" too, which is pretty consistent throughout the code.

 

[mtlogcabin]

these items will get pushed and moved during a panic situation

and the people sitting on the benches will just sit there and watch the panic go by..

 

[Frank]

In a panic situation even a change in direction after going through a door can cause a pileup.

At The Station in RI the corridor turned approaching the front door and there was a railing across the front of the doors where the path of egress split to go down steps one way and a ramp the other--each of which was wider than the doors.

The need to turn when leaving the door created a slowdown and a literal traffic jam.

The double doors jammed solid with people--many of the injuries were scrapes tears and avulsions as people jammed tight in the doorway were forcibly pulled out of the pile by people already outside.

There was a survivor in the pile that were found by the firemen when they unstacked the pile after the fire was extinguished. The first arriving unit put a hose stream on the pile of people at the entrance.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=100988

 

[mark handler]

and the people sitting on the benches will just sit there and watch the panic go by..

It's all the time, not just at Panic Times