Coug Dad
Platinum Member
The commentary to the 2009 IBC regarding common path of travel was dramatically changed to include the following:
Common path of egress travel does not apply to stories or spaces with one exit. See Section 1021.2 for travel limitations for
one, two and three story buildings and Section 1015.1 for spaces with one exit. The definition for “Common path”
indicates the provisions are only applicable when access to two or more exits is required.
This paragraph was not in the earlier versions of the commentary. I know commentary is not code, but it can carry a lot of weight since it is published by ICC.
This would imply that a room or space that only requires one exit access based upon occupant load is not subject to common path of travel requirements. For example, if I have an office space of 4,900 square feet measuring 49 feet by 50 feet, I could have a common path of travel of 150 feet or more. This new section of commentary would infer that the typical 75 / 100 foot of common path of travel would not apply.
This seems to conflict with 1015.1 which requires two exits or exit access doorways when either the occupant load exceeds Table 1015.1 or the common path of travel is exceeded. This seems to be a great conflict.
Can anyone help!
Common path of egress travel does not apply to stories or spaces with one exit. See Section 1021.2 for travel limitations for
one, two and three story buildings and Section 1015.1 for spaces with one exit. The definition for “Common path”
indicates the provisions are only applicable when access to two or more exits is required.
This paragraph was not in the earlier versions of the commentary. I know commentary is not code, but it can carry a lot of weight since it is published by ICC.
This would imply that a room or space that only requires one exit access based upon occupant load is not subject to common path of travel requirements. For example, if I have an office space of 4,900 square feet measuring 49 feet by 50 feet, I could have a common path of travel of 150 feet or more. This new section of commentary would infer that the typical 75 / 100 foot of common path of travel would not apply.
This seems to conflict with 1015.1 which requires two exits or exit access doorways when either the occupant load exceeds Table 1015.1 or the common path of travel is exceeded. This seems to be a great conflict.
Can anyone help!