• 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

Re: Common path of travel

John Drobysh said:
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.
Fortunatly for me/them, there is in fact an existing door there. They demo'd it out and blocked up the wall. I think they are going to be leaving that door exactly where it is. This way, the area or space at the seating area no longer requires 2 exits, although 2 are provided, with a seperation/remoteness of 25 feet for the two doors and the employees can exit through the rear door.
 
Re: Common path of travel

\ said:
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.quote]

Actually, this is news to me. The code takes into account specific instances when we know how the path will be restricted (e.g. assembly fixed seating 1025.8.1, or dining tables, etc.); and it takes into account what may be occuring in a given room based on certain occupancies (1014.3); otherwise, it seems silent on the issue of how to measure CPET distance inside a room. Am I missing something?

Let's face it, a code statement like "half the diagonal distance" or "75' of travel distance" (as opposed to 74', or 75'-3") is a very blunt and simple rule / tool designed to answer a wide variety of building configurations: square triangular, round, etc. Adding a requirement (unless I'm missing it in the code or commentary) that the distance must be measured at 90o angles inside the room seems to imply that the code authors have a greater level of precision and foreknowledge (about how each room is furnished) than is really possible.
 
Re: Common path of travel

The IBC commentary is very specific about measuring travel using 90 degree angles (yeah, yeah, I know the commentary is not the code, but keep reading!). If you think about it, using 90 degree angles allows for a variety of configuration of furnishings, storage, etc. Assuming that some items can be moved periodically, you want the most conservative measurement for travel distance.

Back to a previous comment... A second exit out of the storage/kitchen area is fine for occupants of the storage/kitchen areas. All exits do NOT have to be compliant for all occupants, an exit analysis should demonstrate that all occupants have the required access to the required exits, but not necessarily all exits.
 
Re: Common path of travel

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this topic.

After discussing this here and talking to the Fire Marshal, we have come to the conclusion that the travel distance was compromised and a second exit is required and that the second one shown does not comply due to remoteness issues as well as CPET. The one in the storage room will need to go back in.
 
Re: Common path of travel

Just like the old days. Discussion, disagree, respect for differing opinions and application of code sections and the poster is able to find a compliant solution.

Theres no place like home :!:
 
Re: Common path of travel

Thanks Vegas Paul and mtlog cabin, I learned something new today, and must've previously missed it in the commentary.
 
Re: Common path of travel

This may be extemporaneous, but I feel compelled.

The point about measuring at right angles has been noted in virtually every example given in the code commentary. And the real point is not that the code officials know a great level of detail about every room.

Quite frankly, as Vegas Paul points out, the point is that they don't and don't pretend to. The most common sense approach is to measure the path of travel at right angles, which as VP points out will allow for a variety of configurations. It seems inconceiveable to me that anyone, even the owner can predict what the configuration of contents will be in any room for any given length of time. Anybody out there move furniture, shelving, etc.

You're probably right. It's only me and my wife.
 
Re: Common path of travel

Big Mac, I concur.

Also, I stand corrected - , Section 1021.1, Exception 5: "Within a story, rooms and spaces complying with Section 1015.1 with exits that discharge directly to the exterior at the level of exit discharge, are permitted to have one exit.

So, since the Dining area complies with 1015.1 for a single exit, the secondary exit (through the back) is not a required exit access for that space, and the solution of adding an exit out of the storage room is a compliant solution. :oops:
 
Re: Common path of travel

I'm guessing the prize is for finding Section 1021.1 exception #5 :?
 
Re: Common path of travel

I must have an older book. Section 1021.1 doesn't have any exceptions.
 
Re: Common path of travel

rktect 1 wrote;

I must have an older book. Section 1021.1 doesn't have any exceptions.
Or you have the 2009 IBC which does have exception #5, has you quoted. I would agree the space can have one exit and the storage area can have one, clearly code complaint.
 
Re: Common path of travel

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 exists:

Note that the requirement is for "exit or exit access doorway".

So what are exits? They are "That portion of a means of egress system.......between the exit access and the exit discharge". "Exits include exterior exit doors at ground level, exit enclosures, exit passageways, exterior exit stairs, exterior exit ramps, and horizontal exits". Exits terminate at the exit discharge.

The second choice is an exit access doorway. An exit access is "That portion of a means of egress system that leads from any occupied portion of a building or structure to an exit".

So what is an exit discharge. An exit discharge is "that portion of the means of a means of egress system between the termination of an exit and a public way".

Section 1015.1 applies to all buildings and is dealing with the occupant load only. There is no mention of travel distance, which at this point for a B occupancy without sprinklers is 200' per table 1016.1.

Now we get to section 1019 which applies to all buildings.

Table 1019.1 would require two exits for the subject facility, however there are the exceptions "as modified by sections 1015.1 or 1019.2". Either or both of these sections can be applied as evidenced by 1019.2#3's inclusion of 1015.1.

1015.1 allows one exit based on occupant load with no mention of travel distance.

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. R3

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.

At first glance, item #1 seems to fit. But actually it includes a level below the first story and therefor a prescriptive travel distance. There is no requirement that the occupied space be at the level of exit discharge. Item #1 could incorporate exterior exit stairs and exterior exit ramps.

Item #3 fits perfectly.

I do believe that for the facility in question, only one exit is required and the maximum travel distance is 200'.
 
Re: Common path of travel

Absolutely great thread. Just reading it for the first time. I will offer my humble opinion.

I am with mtlogcabin on this one and everyone has brought some great points to the table.

In my humble opinion:

1) 2 exits are required because only one exit would not comply with the 75' travel distance

2) Because the 2nd exit is required, it must comply with 1015.2.1

3) CPOT is not an issue in this drawing although the layout is not code compliant.

Am I up to speed yet?
 
Re: Common path of travel

Oh yeah, one for thing. I know the OP threw this together to get opinions here BUT,

Has anyone else received the exact same thing/format for a commercial submission? :lol: I know I have
 
Re: Common path of travel

Jeff,

The travel distance of 75' is in Table 1019.2. That is the only place it is mentioned in the code. Section 1019.2 has three separate, distinctive buildings described each of which can have but one exit. Item #1 sends you to the Table because of the nature of the facility. For example, there may be a level below the first story or any other exit component that would contravene the description given in item #3 such as stairs or ramps.

If the facility fits the description of item #3 there is no reason to now apply Table 1019.2.
 
Re: Common path of travel

tigerloose said:
Jeff,The travel distance of 75' is in Table 1019.2. That is the only place it is mentioned in the code. Section 1019.2 has three separate, distinctive buildings described each of which can have but one exit. Item #1 sends you to the Table because of the nature of the facility. For example, there may be a level below the first story or any other exit component that would contravene the description given in item #3 such as stairs or ramps.

If the facility fits the description of item #3 there is no reason to now apply Table 1019.2.
I just went back and re-read your 2nd to last post which was very informative. I see the flow of the code as you describe and understand what you are getting at. I think this area of the code, like many others needs to be cleaned up. I am standing by my decision based on the fact that the 2 exits do not meet the separation requirement therefore in my opinion it is ultimately considered 1 exit. I would have them either move the other exit door or provide another one. I think that the intent of the code is in 1019.2 since it is more specific even though you do not think that it applies.

When it comes down to it I have to ask myself "Can I defend my decision in a court of law?" The answer is that I can if I apply 1019.2 and 1015.2. A good attorney and a sympathetic jury does not care how technically correct you are. They are only focused on the injured or deceased.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that I interpret it differently and would apply it differently.
 
Re: Common path of travel

tigerloose wrote;

The travel distance of 75' is in Table 1019.2. That is the only place it is mentioned in the code
Section 1019.2, needs to meet all the requirements of sec. 1015.1, #2 is cpot, which is 75 feet.

in this case with the first design cpot was exceeded, the last design cpot isn't exceeded.
 
Re: Common path of travel

I stand corrected from my statement that a 75' distance is only found in Table 1019.2, however that is moot. There is no CPET issue involved here.

A CPET is a part of the exit access that is common to separate areas within a building that merge into the CPET and compound the number of occupants available to use the exit access. The definition states that "Paths that merge are CPET".

Many buildings have a CPET according to the literal interpretation of a CPET. Some as short as you can imagine yet a literal interpretation would require that there be two exits for them all. Or do CPET's, as logic would imply, come into play once two exits are required.

Imagine an office space with a 30' hallway from a reception area and four offices from that hallway. Literally, the hallway is a CPET. Would two exits be required because there exists a CPET? To apply such a narrow ruling to the restaurant at hand would mean yes the office space would be required to have two exits.
 
Re: Common path of travel

Section 1019.1: All rooms and spaces within each story shall be provided with and have access to the minimum number of approved independent exits required by Table 1019.1 based on the occupant load of the story, except as modified in Section 1015.1 or 1019.2.

In a non-sprinkled B occupancy, with an occupant load that exceeds 30, once your path of travel exceeds 75 feet two exits are required, based on CPOT in accordance with sec. 1014.3. Section 1015.1 #2 sends you to this section. Section 1019.1 sends you to sec. 1015.1. Common path of travel is the point. :)

tigerloose wrote;

Imagine an office space with a 30' hallway from a reception area and four offices from that hallway. Literally, the hallway is a CPET. Would two exits be required because there exists a CPET? To apply such a narrow ruling to the restaurant at hand would mean yes the office space would be required to have two exits.
measure from the most remote location, if CPOT is exceeded than two exits are required.
 
Re: Common path of travel

1014.3 says that a CPET shall not exceed 75'. It does not say that you can have a CPET longer than 75' if there are two exits. Under no circumstance shall a CPET exceed 75' period. The CPET does not start from the most remote place and continue to the start of the exit discharge.
 
Re: Common path of travel

quotes from post by tigerloose:

1014.3 says that a CPET shall not exceed 75'.
In this case that's correct.

It does not say that you can have a CPET longer than 75' if there are two exits.
CPOT is not a factor once you have two exits, at that point travel distance is used.
Under no circumstance shall a CPET exceed 75' period.
in this case, thats correct.

The CPET does not start from the most remote place and continue to the start of the exit discharge.
yes, you measure from the most remote point to a location where two exits are available.
 
Top