• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Common Path of Travel limit?

P

pmarx

Bronze Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
114
In IBC 2015, is there a section similar to 1014.3 in IBC 2009 that gave a maximum common path of travel distance? I understand that Table 1006.2.1 (2015) combines occupant load/common path of travel to determine if a space could have only one exit where previously we had to look in two separate sections but is there still a section similar to the previous 1014.3 that defines the maximum common path of travel?

Or is this scenario possible:

B use occupancy space in a fully sprinklered building. Occupant load of 52 so per Table 1006.2.1, two exits or exit access doorways are required. So two doors out are provided and they comply with 1007 for configuration. From the most remote point in the space, I have to travel 100' before I reach the end of the common path to the two doors. Does this comply with 1006.2.1? If it does, it just seems counter-intuitive to safety. At least to me unless I'm missing something else. Thanks.
 
If you have two doors out of a space or room and they meet 1007 for configuration then common path of travel does not apply because you have two compliant exits from that space or room. However exit access travel distances do apply see TABLE 1017.2 EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (2018 IBC)
 
mtlogcabin said:
If you have two doors out of a space or room and they meet 1007 for configuration then common path of travel does not apply because you have two compliant exits from that space or room. However exit access travel distances do apply see TABLE 1017.2 EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (2018 IBC)
Click to expand...
OK. Thanks
 
pmarx said:
is there still a section similar to the previous 1014.3 that defines the maximum common path of travel?
Click to expand...

[BE] COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL. That portion of exit access travel distance measured from the most remote point of each room, area or space to that point where the occupants have separate and distinct access to two exits or exit access doorways.

Distances vary depending on occupancy type and occupant load and if sprinklers are provided or not
Spaces TABLE 1006.2.1
R-2 stories with one exit Table 1006.3.3(1)
Stories with one exit other occupancies Table 1006.3.3(2)
Mercantile merchandise pad aisle is 1018.4
Assembly seating aisle is 1029.8
 
mtlogcabin said:
If you have two doors out of a space or room and they meet 1007 for configuration then common path of travel does not apply because you have two compliant exits from that space or room. However exit access travel distances do apply see TABLE 1017.2 EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (2018 IBC)
Click to expand...
The code development cycle between the 2012 and 2015 editions made significant changes regarding the CPET, including its definition. The reason provided was to make it less confusing; but, in my opinion, they made it more confusing--in the definition, they deleted the reference to merging paths and added: "...or exit access doorways."

Under the old definition, what you stated above is probably true in most situations, but you still had to look beyond the room, too. Do those two paths out of the room converge further down the means of egress? If so, then you don't have two "separate and distinct" paths. Therefore, the CPET measurement extends beyond the room to the point where the occupant is presented with two paths to different exits.

For example (a real situation I encountered), a room that has two exit access doorways is located alongside a compliant dead-end corridor. Both doors open into the dead-end corridor. Although the room has two exit access doorways, occupants who use those doorways end up traveling in the same direction within the dead-end corridor until they reach the main corridor where they have the ability to take two separate and distinct paths to two different exits. Thus, the CPET is measured from the most remote point in the room to where the dead-end corridor joins with the main corridor. In this real example, I had the client relocate one door around the corner so that it opened into the main corridor thereby eliminating the converging path.

Under the new definition, it could be interpreted that the original door locations for the room used in the example above are perfectly fine since the room's "exit access doorways" provided two paths and it doesn't matter if those two paths merge elsewhere along the way. I don't think that was the intent of the change, and I've seen interpretations (including my own) following the older definition regardless of how the definition is currently written.
 
Still amazed sometimes how relevant and informative this forum can be. I have been struggling with the new code section on CPET. Like RLGA I have been applying the older method/definition and trying to reconcile it with current language. I have read and re-read RLGA's articles on this (and I'm stickin' with them). Thanks for the question, and for the explanation. I think the code fixed itself right into being broken.
 
Young Architect said:
@RLGA - Ron Green - So based on the new interpretation this example would be acceptable? What section are you referencing when you say "under the new definition"?

Example
Click to expand...
Not if you eliminate that door--the common path will be well over the 100-foot limitation (assuming the building is sprinklered).

The "Decision Point" you indicate would be where you indicate if only the stairs lead to another level of exit discharge. If the stairs only go to the upper stories, then your "Decision Point" is on the other side of the next set of double doors where the occupant can either go straight or exit through the vestibule.

The confusion that the new definition brings can be illustrated in your example using the "LAB/SHOP." The Lab/Shop provides two exit access doors. However, assuming you deleted the door in the open office and the stairs do not lead to another level of exit discharge, if you egress out of either door from the Lab/Shop you still converge at that set of double doors to the right. Some people may interpret that since the Lab/Shop has two exit access doors, there is no CPET, even though the occupants converge further down the egress path.
 
Young Architect said:
Great points @RLGA and @Builder Bob - Appreciate your explanations. One follow-up... if the left side of the building (the image I included) is considered a suite and under 50ppl; do we need to take into account the 100' COPT?
Click to expand...
Yes--Table 1006.2.1 limits the CPET to 100 feet for Group B with no exception. The purpose of the CPET is to make sure all occupants have access to at least two paths that lead to two separate exits within a certain distance. If the CPET is too long, that one path has a greater chance of being blocked giving the occupants no other means of egress.
 
Not only do I have to explain common path of travel on a weekly basis, I find myself explaining it to the same people over and over again. All that to say, it is a difficult concept for people to wrap their head around.
 

Attachments

  • IBC-NFPA-Comparison.pdf
    86.5 KB · Views: 62
To verify, if I have a space with 97 occupants and two separate and distinct paths to two separate exits and the paths do not converge, CPET does not get measured from the most remote spot in that space, rather it would now be measured from each of the spaces exit access doors?
1656011228854.png
 
If a space has two separate and distinct paths to two separate exits with no convergence, then there is no common path of egress travel for that space.
 
steveray said:
How does that roof patio get a break from accessibility?
Click to expand...
IBC 1104.4:
An accessible route is not required to stories, mezzanines
and occupied roofs that have an aggregate area
of not more than 3,000 square feet (278.7 m2) and
are located above and below accessible levels. This
exception shall not apply to...

But there are two levels of roof, the lower is on an accessible route anyway.
 
And then maybe this? Hate the fact that you can have a 3000ft non accessible restaurant on a roof, but hey......Sorry for the Hi-jack....And I will end it here...

1108.2.9 Dining and drinking areas. In dining and drinking
areas, all interior and exterior floor areas shall be
accessible and be on an accessible route.
Exceptions:
1. An accessible route between accessible levels
and stories above or below is not required where
permitted by Section 1104.4, Exception 1.
 
Sifu said:
IBC 1104.4:
An accessible route is not required to stories, mezzanines
and occupied roofs that have an aggregate area
of not more than 3,000 square feet (278.7 m2) and
are located above and below accessible levels. This
exception shall not apply to...

But there are two levels of roof, the lower is on an accessible route anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that floor is accessible by an elevator, and if thats the case that occupied roof would also need to be accessible.
 
Does the Exit Access travel distance apply to both exits available at the end of the common path of travel? If I have a large warehouse where it takes 100 feet to get the point of two exits; one exit within 400 ft (S-2) and the second exit is over the travel distance, does that still qualify as a common path? or does the exceeded travel distance of the one exit exclude it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top