• 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.

Common Path of Travel

nitramnaed

nitramnaed

Sawhorse
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
182
Location
L'Etolle du Nord
I have a small midwest community fire inspector that handles the plan review for this area. We are in disagreement over common path of travel as outlined in the 2000 NFPA 101.

Small Quick Serve Restaurant. No Sprinkler system.

I attached a few documents for your help. Here’s the code section for reference:



2000 NFPA 101 - 12.2.5.1 Arrangements of Means of Egress: Exits shall be located remotely from each other and shall be arranged to minimize the possibility that they might be blocked by an emergency. Exception: A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 20 ft from any point where serving any number of occupants and for the first 75 ft from any point where serving not more than 50 occupants.



There are two basic arguments:

  1. The common path is only 14’-0” long before the occupants have two (2) route choices to an exit (see attached “Common Path.jpg”). However, the reviewer views the common path as 33’-0” before the occupants have a choice between two (2) exits.
  2. The point where the occupant load reaches 50 persons occurs about halfway through our dining room, thereby, allowing 75’-0” for the common path for the back half of the dining room where the occupant load is less than 50 at any point (see attached “Occupant Load.jpg”)


I also included the “Exit Separation.jpg” to demonstrate that we meet the intent of the IBC for exit separation in a non-sprinklered building (50% of the diagonal length of the overall area served).
 
Nitramnaed:

We don't use 101 very often, but I think the reviewer is correct about the point of choice of two exits. However, the start point for figuring common path of travel is in the far corner of the stall next to the toilet (See 7.6.1). Also it appears that there's a fenced outdoor seating area. Under 101 this needs two exits as well.

Regards,

DB
 
Plus as long as you meet the required seperation, code does not say where the doors have to be located
 
Is the occupant load high??Seems like most of the place is fixed seating??
Click to expand...
I agree with cda, even with the proposed door out the side, the only way I see this working is if the occupant load is below 50.

I wasn't aware that the IBC trumped the NFPA
 
I did not know that any jurisdiction was now using the NFPA as a building code. What is the jurisdiction's adopted building code? Not the adopted fire code.
 
# #

" I wasn't aware that the IBC trumped the NFPA "
Click to expand...
From the `12 IBC, [A] 102.4.2 - Provisions in referenced codes and standards:"Where the extent of the reference to a referenced code or standard includes

subject matter that is within the scope of this code or the International Codes

listed in Section 101.4, the provisions of this code or the International Codes

listed in Section 101.4, as applicable, shall take precedence over the provisions

in the referenced code or standard."

# #
 
The common path of travel is more correct with the reviewer's location marked in photo two..... however, as stated, the common path of travel is short because it does not include the means of egress in the restroom.

As far as NFPA vs. IBC, some states use NFPA for fire prevention (FIre) while the buidling departments may use IBC.

The intent of separation of exits and common path of travel is to ensure exits are readily available when an emergency arises - whether natural (fire, severe storms, etc.) or man made (arson, man with gun, etc.)

In the presentation of picture one, a man could easily block access to an exit for 24 patrons........ while picture two still allows a single gunman to cover the same area, patrons at least have an option to rush the exit further away from the perpetrator...... thus ensuring a better chance of survival.
 
With the calculated length of the queue line this is an occupancy of over 50.
Click to expand...
Guess so, with just fixed seating looks like 45?

Just seems it is being calculated wrong
 
With the calculated length of the queue line this is an occupancy of over 50.
Click to expand...
Still as long as you meet the seperation requirement, the code does not say where the two doors have to be located!
 
In my opinion, I believe you’re dealing with exit recognition and remoteness issues. Maybe the reviewer is addressing your remoteness with regard to the arrangement and potential for both being blocked by one emergency [7.5.1.3 as referenced by occupancy chapter] and confusing the common path travel (where can the occupant see two clear exits). You are correct with the allowance for 75’ since the occupant load is >50 factoring the building/area. The “area served” includes the area of the Kitchen and business occupancy since there is not fire rated separation so one would revert back to the “building” for measuring the diagonal distance for remoteness while not using the back door……… remember the Kitchen is not an exit [12.2.5.2] therefore the exit arrangement is off if measuring the actual diagonal distance of the building or area served.

While the proposed design meets the ½ rule it does not meet the potential for one emergency blocking both. Assuming that the reviewer’s counter is as such because the practicality with the side wall prohibits the use of that area near the Storage to create the desirable remote exit and the limitation of adding another exit in the Kitchen area. This is an issue frequently missed by designers and necessary as the writers of 101 have remained hard fast on through all revisions. Look at what situations we face in today’s world and natural disasters.

NFPA 101, 2000

7.5.1.3 Where more than one exit is required from a building or portion thereof, such exits shall be remotely located from each other and shall be arranged and constructed to minimize the possibility that more than one has the potential to be blocked by any one fire or other emergency condition.

12.2.5.2 Means of egress shall not be permitted through kitchens, storerooms, restrooms, closets, or hazardous areas as described in 12.3.2.

Handbook Commentary: A common path of travel exists where a space is arranged so that occupants within that space are able to travel in only one direction to reach any of the exits or to reach the point at which the occupants have the choice of two paths of travel to remote exits.

………………………… requires that the exit accesses be remotely located from each other to minimize the possibility that more than one of the exit accesses has the potential to be blocked by any one fire or other emergency condition. Such judgment is left to the authority having jurisdiction, which might be influenced by the fact that the diagonal measurement criterion of 7.5.1.3 was not met.

P.S. Looks like BB hit it also mine was a work in progress and just finished between plan reviews using 101.....:-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe the purpose or intent of exit separation or CPOT, whether based on IBC or NFPA, has anything to do with escape because of perpetrators with guns.
 
Still as long as you meet the seperation requirement, the code does not say where the two doors have to be located!
Click to expand...
True, but the reviewer is saying that where he assumes the point of CPOT it is over 20 feet. So we need another door as indicated on photo 2.
 
Look at drawing 1 there are 79 calculated occupants so two exits are required. I noticed a set of stairs across from the ladies restroom. Are there 2 exits from that area served by the stairs? If not the common path starts in the lower level.
 
The common path of travel is more correct with the reviewer's location marked in photo two..... however, as stated, the common path of travel is short because it does not include the means of egress in the restroom. As far as NFPA vs. IBC, some states use NFPA for fire prevention (FIre) while the buidling departments may use IBC.

The intent of separation of exits and common path of travel is to ensure exits are readily available when an emergency arises - whether natural (fire, severe storms, etc.) or man made (arson, man with gun, etc.)

In the presentation of picture one, a man could easily block access to an exit for 24 patrons........ while picture two still allows a single gunman to cover the same area, patrons at least have an option to rush the exit further away from the perpetrator...... thus ensuring a better chance of survival.
Click to expand...
I would agree with a corridor situation or some other building

This is is a hole in the wall restaurant. Just like you see all the time.

It could be argued that if the door is moved to near the counter..

A person coming out of the bottom bathroom could be in danger, if there is a problem around the main doors.

Once again the code suggests remoteness, but does not say shall be done
 
I don't believe the purpose or intent of exit separation or CPOT, whether based on IBC or NFPA, has anything to do with escape because of perpetrators with guns.
Click to expand...
It does partly in addition to other potentials and is based on being able to recognize (2) required remote exits and the ability to escape from fire or other single emergency condition/event (i.e. collapse, flooding, active shooter, vehicle whisky throttle etc.) the exits are not remote in accordance with 101.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NFPA 101, 2000

7.5.1.3 Where more than one exit is required from a building or portion thereof, such exits shall be remotely located from each other and shall be arranged and constructed to minimize the possibility that more than one has the potential to be blocked by any one fire or other emergency condition.

If the door is moved to where the reviewer wants it, and if you come out of the bottom bathroom, what does that do to the cpot?

You gain 3-6 feet seperation by moving the door??
 
The diagonal is based on the area requiring the 2 exits, not the kitchen...it has it's own exit it appears....7.5.1.3 seems like a "touch the badge" section without any hard parameters the official can require whatever he wants...IMO

May be different in NFPA, but ICC kitchen people would exit the kitchen door, diners would pick one of the 2 in that area....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top