CBC 1015.2.1 exits a "reasonable distance apart"???

[Yikes]

The 2013 CBC amended 1015.2.1 for rooms that require more than two exits (such as an exhibit hall):

"Additional required exit or exit access doorways shall be arranged a reasonable distance apart so that if one becomes blocked, the others will be available."

The word "reasonable" sounds very subjective to me. What is reasonable? What is the presumed size of the object doing the blocking? A 20' long car, parked parallel against the exit doors, so that a 25' exit door dispersal is OK? What if 200' tall redwood tree that fell across the entire exterior wall of the opening?

 

[cda]

Do not put them all on the same wall

Table 1021.1 specifies that the minimum number of exits available to each occupant of a floor is based on the total occupant load of that floor. This is so that at least one exit will be available in case of a fire emergency and to provide increased assurance that a larger number of occupants can be accommodated by the remaining exits when one exit is not available. While an equal distribution of exit capacity among all of the exits is not required, a proper design would not only balance capacity with the occupant load distribution, but also consider a reasoned distribution of capacity to avoid a severe dependence on one exit.

 

[Yikes]

Let me be more specific: I have a historic (unsprinklered) exhibit hall that qualifies for over 1000 occupants, requiring 4 exits The hall diagonal is 206', so 1/2 diagonal is 103'.

The hall has groupings of exit doors on two opposite walls, 132' apart. So far, so good.

The west wall has 3 pairs of exit doors, spaced max. 22' away from each other (furthest jamb to furthest jamb).

The east wall has 5 pairs of exit doors, spaced max 75' away from each other.

The fire official looks at this and thinks we've only got two exits.

I look at it and say, don't treat a grouping of doors as a single exit. They are far enough away form each other that they can be thought of as 4 distinct exits.

The IBC commentary states that only two of the exits need to be spaced away from teach other - -the remaining exits can be placed anywhere.

However, the 2013 CBC adds another unique requirement that all exits be a "reasonable distance apart".

Do I have 4 exits? Yes.

Are all of those doors a reasonable distance apart?

 

[mark handler]

Are all of those doors a reasonable distance apart?

Up to the Designer, and the BO, and the Fire Department

If all agree------- it complies

 

[cda]

you have eight exits, as long as they are marked that way.

so what is bringing all this up???

new tenant, remodel

what is the real question???

 

[cda]

this is what 2009 says at the end of "number of exits"

1021.4 Exit door arrangement. Exit door arrangement shall meet the requirements of Sections 1015.2 through 1015.2.2.

The intent of this section is to provide a cross reference to the exit door requirements for separation.

 

[mark handler]

http://bcdg.hoop.la/topic/exit-separation-section-1015-2-1-2007-cbc

 

[Yikes]

To restate: the IBC commentary for 1015.2.2 says that "two of the exits or exit access doors must meet the remoteness test and any additional exits or doors can be placed anywhere within the code plan that meets the code requirements".

However, for 2013 the Sate of California added this local requirement which supercedes the commentary by this additional language: "Additional required exit or exit access doorways shall be arranged a reasonable distance apart so that if one becomes blocked, the others will be available."

So, what is *reasonable*?

mark thanks for the links, but hey were to the old CBC. My problem is new.

cda, what is bringing it up is repairs to a damaged floor, caused the officials to revisit the old building. sometime in the 1970s, the exit doors on the south wall were closed off but equivalent exit doors were added on the east side. The fire official is looking at it and is nervous about the arrangement of exits. IMO, he is reading the code wrong, and of course we are allowed to continue occupancy under the original code with which the work was permitted. I just wanted to be able to calm him down by showing the the exit width and dispersion just happens to also meet current code as well.

I just don't like it when the code uses the subjective term "reasonable" because the time will come when you meet a person who isn't reasonable - - then what do you do?

 

[Yikes]

Are all of those doors a reasonable distance apart?Up to the Designer, and the BO, and the Fire Department

If all agree------- it complies

Mark, the problem is that the Fire Official did an embarrassingly bad job of code interpretation. He called the exhibit hall an "A" occupancy, but in the era in which it was first built, the old UBC reserved Group A solely for occupant loads greater than 3500, with exit requirements in chapter 6.

Our exhibit hall would actually have been classified as "Group B division 2" occupancy (assembly halls and dance halls less from 500-3500 occupants), with exit requirements in chapter 7 of the UBC.

In other words, he wasn't even looking at the right part of the code when he declared that our exiting was deficient. Yet, he wrote a letter with his code analysis and declared that a "distinct hazard" exists.

Now, as the architect, it is my job to get him to back off his letter without professionally humiliating or making an enemy of him in the process. I'm trying to go the extra mile, take the positive / high road, and show him how it's still quite safe even under current code.

 

[mark handler]

Tact but

You just make your case.

 

[cda]

Fire sprinkler system in the building ????

State fire marshal have any fabulous interpretations on his web site???

 

[Yikes]

Fire sprinkler system in the building ????State fire marshal have any fabulous interpretations on his web site???

No existing interpretations form the SFM.

The building does not yet have a fire sprinkler system. The owner has been building up a capital reserve fund to eventually do this in the future, but not today.

 

[FM William Burns]

it is my job to get him to back offhis letter without professionally humiliating or making an enemy of him in theprocess. I'm trying to go the extra mile, take the positive / high road, andshow him how it's still quite safe even under current code.

Example:

Dear Fire Official……….

Please find attached a drawing of the (facility). In accordance with (jurisdiction’s) current adopted code (insert applicable code sections for number of exits, capacity requirements and depiction of diagonal distance markings) please find that (RDP firm) interpretation demonstrates compliance with (jurisdiction) current code for number of exits and egress capacity. In the event your department does not agree with this interpretation, please provide the necessary adopted code or ordinances references or sections applicable to (jurisdiction) indicating our error etc………

Sometimes code officials need to learn hard lessons and then learn to appreciate the need for knowing they are correct in their interpretation before engaging and or develop an ability to admit they were wrong.

[/QUOTE]

 

[ADAguy]

This is an example of why it is important to "retain" copies of old codes or "know" who has them.

Many code officials were not even born when many of the buildings we work on were built.

Cities often fail to maintain libraries of historic codes, as do their contracted consultants (loss of institutional memory?)

I love to walk on a job with an "original code book", helps to have grey hair too (smiling).

Bound books are still valuable resources vs "E's" and xerox copies.