• 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

rktect 1

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,109
Location
Illinois
I have a small A-2 restaurant with fixed seating and take out with about 40 occupants, considered a B tenant finish out in an old existing building, no sprinklers. By occupant load it requires one exit. By common path of egress travel I am uncertain.

From the most remote point in a storage area to an exit is 90 feet which is over the max common path by 15 feet. BUT, on the wall to this exit is another exit at the far end which if the person went to would also be 90 feet. BUT/SO, the common path of egress travel would then, because two exits are present, only be about 67 feet. This would be the point at which a person in the back room was able to come to the front counter area and decide which of the two exits to go to travel the remainder 23 feet. BUT, this second exit can't be considered a part of the required exits because of the remoteness. It is located about 32 feet from the other exit, not in an oppsite direction and is required to be 1/2 the distance of 75 feet diagonal of the space, right?

So basically, they have to provide a required exit somewhere else, correct? I feel like this is one of those judgement call times.

It's the word "required" in the definition of "common path of egress travel" I think is the issue.

clip_image002-2.gif
 
Re: Common path of travel

Nope... the separation of exits is only when two or more are REQUIRED... you only require one exit based on occupancy load and CPET. When the occupant reaches a point where he/she has a choice of two or more exit paths, then CPET meaurement ends, so it sounds like you are ok.

However, please ensure that neither of the exits that you are using to comply with CPET passes through kitchens or storage rooms (unless you are exiting from those spaces) per IBC 1014.2.
 
Re: Common path of travel

If I understand you correctly you can not meet the CPOT with one exit therefore two are required With that said depending on the layout and how you are measuring the area served will be the key in determining what the required seperation distance length is.

1015.2.1 Two exits or exit access doorways.

Where two exits or exit access doorways are required from any portion of the exit access, the exit doors or exit access doorways shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area to be served measured in a straight line between exit doors or exit access doorways
 
Re: Common path of travel

COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL. That portion of exit access which the occupants are required to traverse before two separate and distinct paths of egress travel to two exits are available. Paths that merge are common paths of travel. Common paths of egress travel shall be included within the permitted travel distance.

rk - I'm going with vegas paul on this one. The use of the word 'required' in the definition is modifying the occupants movement, not the exit doors. IMO, you are still only required to have one door, and CPET ends when there is a choice - in this case at the service counter. As long as the second 'exit' meets the requirements for an 'exit', remoteness in this case is moot as it is not a 'required exit'.
 
Re: Common path of travel

I agree with mtlogcabin. Two exits are required because of cpet. The second exit does not meet the requirements for an exit.
 
Re: Common path of travel

Boy, I'm getting confused now! After reading mtlogcabin's explanation, I can see the vailidity in that as well. This appears to be a "chicken or the egg" issue. Do you look at CPET first, (and determine that it is compliant) and then decide that only one exit is required (even though they have two), or do you look at 1015 first and decide that CPET dictates the need for two required exits, and then apply 1015.2.1 (exit separation) to that decision???

2009 code, although reworded considerably in these sections, does not clear it up at all.

This looks like it oculd be argued either way, and probably can't be defended very well if the designer takes issue...

Another option is to measure the diagonal for the "area" served rather than the whole restaurant/building. 1015.2.1 has this ambiguous wording in it which allows for additional confusion. What is the area served?
 
Re: Common path of travel

I agree with kilitact and mtlogcabin. Once you fail to meet CPET, then two exits are definitely required and the provisions for two exits have to be adhered to, just like any other provision of the code requiring two exits.
 
Re: Common path of travel

High Desert - Just food for thought, I'm (admitedly, see above) still confused on this issue and not disagreeing with you, however consider this... What if you already HAVE two exits, and therefore you HAVEN'T failed to meet CPET? Now, are the two exits required to meet the separation requirements (using this logic, the two exits AREN''t required, since you meet CPET!).
 
Re: Common path of travel

mtlog & kil - I'm going to jump over the fence on this one, but not because of your points. For one thing (kil) we don't know if the second door meets the reqs for an 'exit' as there is not enough information about that door, so to say it doesn't is premature at best. We've all been looking at CPET. CPET isn't the problem as it is only +/-67' where 75' is permitted. HOWEVER...

1019.2 Buildings with one exit.

Only one exit shall be required in buildings as described below:

1. Buildings described in Table 1019.2, provided that the building has not more than one level below the first story above grade plane.

2. Buildings of Group R-3 occupancy.

3. Single-level buildings with the occupied space at the level of exit discharge provided that the story or space complies with Section 1015.1 as a space with one means of egress.

TABLE 1019.2 BUILDINGS WITH ONE EXIT

OCCUPANCY

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDING ABOVE GRADE PLANE

MAXIMUM OCCUPANTS

(OR DWELLING UNITS) PER FLOOR AND

TRAVEL DISTANCE

A, Bd, Ee, F, M, U

1 Story

49 occupants and 75 feet travel distance

CPET is not the problem, travel distance is. The only ways out would be to reduce travel distance or add sprinklers. I'm thinking 'reduce travel distance' will be the choice... JMHO
 
Re: Common path of travel

vegas paul said:
High Desert - Just food for thought, I'm (admitedly, see above) still confused on this issue and not disagreeing with you, however consider this... What if you already HAVE two exits, and therefore you HAVEN'T failed to meet CPET? Now, are the two exits required to meet the separation requirements (using this logic, the two exits AREN''t required, since you meet CPET!).
That is exactly where I am at with this.

I just added a bad sketch of the plan on the next post.
 
Re: Common path of travel

John

1019.2 item 3 you have to meet 1015.1

1015.1 Exit or exit access doorways required.

Two exits or exit access doorways from any space shall be provided where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The occupant load of the space exceeds the values in Table 1015.1.

2. The common path of egress travel exceeds the limitations of Section 1014.3.

Would you allow them to remove an exit door?

No!

Why not?

Because without the second exit the CPOT is 90 ft.

2nd exit is required.

What's the seperation distance required between the 2 required exits?

1/2 the distance of the area served.

How you measure this distance is the question that I believe is unresolved because of the term "area served".
 
Re: Common path of travel

mtlogcabin, I think I am going with the distance of the area served over the distance of the entire space. Unless someone can explain to me why it would be otherwise.

I'm torn though. How does using the distance of the area served help out the guy standing in the storage space when a fire breaks out? Wouldn't the area served then require it to include the storage space as well?
 
Re: Common path of travel

You should measure your travel distance at right angles not diagonaly across a room.

The area served in my opinion would be the dining area so the doors should be seperated 1/2 the diagonale distance of that room measured acroos the longest distance.
 
Re: Common path of travel

So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind. Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one. Two places exist for this exit. The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to. (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is. Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner? What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area? None, would be my answer. Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.

But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area. What about the 20 foot dead end issue?
 
Re: Common path of travel

Remember it is CPOT from the storage area that is driving the 2nd exit. So don't over complicate this. You could simply add a door in the kitchen area opposite the small rooms between the storage and kitchen.
 
Re: Common path of travel

OK, I’m going to try this again. The internet apparently ate my first response.

1st) One needs to assess the common path of travel from the most remote part of the structure, in this case the storage room, to a point where a person has a choice of two code compliant exits. If that distance is less than 75’, done deal.

If on the other hand the distance properly measured exceeds 75’ or if either exit is not code compliant, there are issues that need to be resolved.

2nd) As has been alluded to the common path of travel distance needs to be measured at 90o angles. It is not to be assumed that a person can cut across a room, particularly in a storage area.

3rd) Anytime two exits are required, for whatever reason, they must meet the separation requirements established by the code. If that means that one of those exits needs to be placed at the rear of the tenant space, then a wall separating the path of exit travel from the storage room should be provided.
 
Re: Common path of travel

mtlogcabin said:
Remember it is CPOT from the storage area that is driving the 2nd exit. So don't over complicate this. You could simply add a door in the kitchen area opposite the small rooms between the storage and kitchen.
Oops. I should have written down that area is another tenant space from door #2 all the way back. The opposite wall and left side wall is to the exterior as is the far far right hand side wall. The leftover space shown at bottom right corner (shown empty) is another tenant space.
 
Re: Common path of travel

The travel distance for B, can be 75 ft, if 49 occupants, if more than 49 occupants two exits are required. If no sprinklers, seventy five feet is the maximum CPET travel distance in either case, with an occupant load that exceeds 49 with one exit. When CPET is exceeded two exits are required. In this scenario travel distance is 90 feet, so CPET and travel distance have been exceeded. Two exits are required and need to meet the requirements of Sec. 1015.2.1. They have met one requirement but not the other.

rktect wrote:

So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind. Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one. Two places exist for this exit. The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to. (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is. Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner? What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area? None, would be my answer. Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area. What about the 20 foot dead end issue?

So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind. Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one. Two places exist for this exit. The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to. (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is. Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner? What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area? None, would be my answer. Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.

But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area. What about the 20 foot dead end issue?
On exit #1 install a exit passageway, Sec. 1021, get the length to where you meet the separation distances in Sec. 1015.2.1
 
Re: Common path of travel

With all due respect to my learned colleagues... CPET has NOT been exceeded. CPET stops when you have a choice of two exits, that happens at less than 75' in this case.

It is not about CPET, as I posted earlier it IS about travel distance. The place needs a second exit, and that exit must be placed to provide a travel distance of 75' or less. Is there a possibility that a door to the exterior could be added in the storage room? This 'exit' would be for the use of those who are within the storage room ONLY. Everyone else would use the front door for exiting.
 
Re: Common path of travel

JD, CPET stops when you have a choice of two code complaint exits, in this case they have two exits, but they aren't code complaint exits, would you "grandfather" them in.
 
Re: Common path of travel

kilitact said:
The travel distance for B, can be 75 ft, if 49 occupants, if more than 49 occupants two exits are required. If no sprinklers, seventy five feet is the maximum CPET travel distance in either case, with an occupant load that exceeds 49 with one exit. When CPET is exceeded two exits are required. In this scenario travel distance is 90 feet, so CPET and travel distance have been exceeded. Two exits are required and need to meet the requirements of Sec. 1015.2.1. They have met one requirement but not the other. rktect wrote:

So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind. Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one. Two places exist for this exit. The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to. (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is. Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner? What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area? None, would be my answer. Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area. What about the 20 foot dead end issue?

So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind. Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one. Two places exist for this exit. The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to. (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is. Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner? What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area? None, would be my answer. Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.

But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area. What about the 20 foot dead end issue?
On exit #1 install a exit passageway, Sec. 1021, get the length to where you meet the separation distances in Sec. 1015.2.1

Wow. At first I didn't understand where you were going with that. And I agree that what you propose is a solution. I suppose they could also just relocate that door number one around the corner and they would make the 37/38 feet (They are currently at 32 feet). But I still am asking this question. What purpose would this serve other than the letter of the code was enforced? Moving that door, or as you suggested above, relocates it 4-5 feet, maybe. The people behind the counter, when the fire erupts at the deep fryer by the door to the counter area are still SOL at this point. There is no exit for them other than to jump over the counter.
 
Re: Common path of travel

Josh, I agree that it is a travel distance issue rather than CPET issue. However, I respectfully disagree that an exit through the storage room would be a code compliant solution - I maintain that, once it is determined that the space needs to have two exits, then both exits have to be available to all occupants (which means access through a storage room will not comply).

As for the relocation of Exit #1 to the right of where it is drawn, I agree that it changes nothing for the scenario of a fire in the vicinty of the counter/kitchen prep/serve area, but the intent of remotely locating the exits is so that, if one exit is blocked by a fire, the other exit should be available long enough for all occupants to safely egress. By moving Exit #1 further away from exit #2, the code is met in that manner, and common path of travel is not exceeded.

If the exterior door is existing at the location shown as Exit #1, I would say to take away the EXIT sign and mark the door "NO exit" and then the restauranteur can put a table in that corner :)
 
Top