• 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.

Corridor continuity

It is an I-1 occupancy. The occupants are capable of responding to an emergency without physical assistance from staff. The occupants (17 rooms once the dining area is installed) will most likely be in attendance at the dining area, if not still in their rooms. The added life-safety risk associated with this type of incidental use is nominal...it doesn't even classify as an assembly room requiring two exits.

If it had seating for 20 in this area and it was called a lobby, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If it also had some tables, and the occupants played bingo, cards, or watched television every evening with their guests/family members we wouldn't be having this conversation.

However, push those chairs and tables together, because we want to eat food in this area, and that gastrointestinal activity, which is not by the letter of the code listed in the 1017.5 exception, promotes a greater fire-hazard than a lobby or foyer....we are having this conversation.
 
Changing the area from a corridor to an intervening space is not a code violation. The designer only has to meet the minimum requirements of the code not exceed the requirements. 1014.2 allows egress from a room or space so long as the room or 'area' is accessory to the room or space that you are egressing from, and so long as you meet the other requirements listed: not a kitchen, not storage, not hazardous... and meet travel distances.

A dining room (room) with hallways (areas) leading to it from dwelling units is with out a doubt accessory to the dwelling units.
 
gbhammer said:
Changing the area from a corridor to an intervening space is not a code violation. The designer only has to meet the minimum requirements of the code not exceed the requirements. 1014.2 allows egress from a room or space so long as the room or 'area' is accessory to the room or space that you are egressing from, and so long as you meet the other requirements listed: not a kitchen, not storage, not hazardous... and meet travel distances.A dining room (room) with hallways (areas) leading to it from dwelling units is with out a doubt accessory to the dwelling units.
Click to expand...
corridor continuity trumps everything else,

basically if the ahj wants to stamp it and are able to sleep at night, that that is thier call.
 
Respectfully offered,

I have visited Assisted Living facilities before, and not all are able

to respond to an emergency in a rapid ("urgent") manner without

assistance. Some are even wheelchair bound, or carrying around

various medical apparatus, and some still are simply mentally

challenged because of old age or other medical conditions, so

the ("straight forward" designation ) of an I-1 type facility is not

all encompassing regarding response capabilities and building design.

In Section 1017.5, the Exceptions listed for Foyers, lobbies &

reception rooms tend (IMO) to be a higher state of response

capability than a Dining area, where sitting down to eat, and

engaged conversation, involves a "more relaxed state". Am I

splitting hairs here, ..you betcha! Senior citizens (some, but not

all) in these type facilities value greatly their time to sit and talk

and eat with others, moreso than most able bodied individuals.

It IS a time for relaxation and fellowshipping with others.

It is because of the proposed "dining" activities that I am concerned.

Any dining table & chairs, ..the (somewhat) more relaxed state of

mind of the tenants, ..the physical, mental & medical challenges

that are most definitely at play, all go in to the mix of making a

(facility) design change like this.

I would respectfully decline the design as offered and request that

the corridor remain intact. I am "all for" having each tenant to be

able to move freely about the facility, ..to have an "openness" (<- sp ?? )

to their home, ..to be able to "go & come" and visit other residents in

a safe & comfortable manner, as they choose, but to design a room /

space as a "Dining" area open to a rated corridor, IMO, would not be

"the most restrictive" application.

Also, as somewhat of an aside, I would encourage all of you to go

and visit an Assisted Living facility, ..anywhere! Some are better run

and taken care of than others. Some have better staffing than others.

And still others, are in better condition than others. The condition,

staffing and treatment of residents in some is appalling, ..abusive,

..disrespectful and in others, ...downright criminal!

I vote "no!" Leave the corridor intact!



For some more info, ask some of the more experienced Fire Code

Officials about that "being able to sleep at night", regarding some

of the conditions in these type facilities. IMO, this is not something

that I could summarily approve.

As long as I am on my soapbox, ..I would encourage Plans Examiners

and other code officials to not take this proposed design change

lightly. Kinda like the ADA requirements.. Senior citizens have

enough challenges as it is. To me, it is my responsibility to look

at all aspects of these type projects, rather than just the building

components themselves. It is, IMO, much more than just about

monetary costs of the building.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A corridor is enclosed and provides a distinct path for egress. When you allow other activities within the corridor then the distinct egress path is lost. Although the dining or living areas may be allowed by the code as an intervening room within a corridor (not totally convinced) I agree there should be a distinct path delineated through the intervening rooms, preferably a wall or guard.
 
I found it much harder to except the not a stair for just one occupant, and now that I find myself considering a not a corridor as even remotely possible for hundreds is beyond my limited ability to comprehend.

The better part of me is always more restrictive, and would love to take a no way stance. I just don’t see the line in the sand that I saw with stairways. Here the code allows you to travel 200’ before you must hit exit access, there is no reason to think that the code says the moment you leave your room you have to treat that door as that exit access. The commentary is clear when it says you can enter a hall then re-enter an intervening space, then another hall, as many times as possible so long as you meet the 200’ before finding an exit enclosure that leads directly to the exit discharge. Now the corridor on the bottom floor would need to have continuity because it is a part of the exit. The corridor/dining room on the fourth floor is simply a part of the path of egress to an exit.
 
Thanks GT for your response. I am respectfully holding with my position that the dining area integrated into the corridor does not diminish the corridor's fire-rated continuity.

Given cda and globe trekkers position, the OP should also consider a (e.g., mckeon) wand type of door/wall system if they would like to keep the open-ness between the corridor and dining area. This should satisfy the continuity issue and present the same or similar design result.
 
A corridor, rated or not is part of the exit access and is part of the exit access travel distance

A corridor is never part of an exit

see the definitions
 
globe trekker said:
Papio,Do you have some pictures or links to this "wand" type door / wall system?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
www.McKeonDoor.com

a couple of options:

1) vertical acting with complying swing egress door

2) side acting accordian with power-assisted egress (suggested for most case studies involving corridor seperation in healthcare).

3) side acting accordian with complying swing egress dooor and vertical acting with comply swing egress door combination

can be used for horizontal exits and exit passageways.
 
mtlogcabin said:
A corridor, rated or not is part of the exit access and is part of the exit access travel distanceA corridor is never part of an exit

see the definitions
Click to expand...
Ah I agree with you about the definition of exit access my bad I met to say EXIT. 1016.1 The 200' of travel distance is not always required to be protected until you hit a vertical exit enclosure, an exit passageway (a corridor can be a part of an exit passageway but may not be), a horizontal exit, an exterior exit stairway or ramp.
 
GLobe;;;

"""In Section 1017.5, the Exceptions listed for Foyers, lobbies &

reception rooms tend (IMO) to be a higher state of response"""

Not sure if that is it, but more of the

FUEL LOAD

Built a pretty corridor than fill it with combustibles, why built it in the first place???
 
cda said:
so everyone agrees with corridor continuityand that is has to be maintained till you get out of the building

just down to what can be allowed to be open to this exit system

so for those that would aloow the dining room in a rated corridor, would you allow it if it was in the same stairwell eclousure that the corridor dumps into, if it was out of the exit width???? same exiting system as you have in the corridor on the floor where you would allow trhe dining room open ot the rated corridor
Click to expand...
No. Not the same thing. 1022.1 "An exit enclosure shall not be used for any purpose other than means of egress. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: kas
Does a Corridor meet the definition of exit enclosure :::

EXIT ENCLOSURE. An exit component that is separated from other interior spaces of a building or structure by fire-resistance-rated construction and opening protectives, and provides for a protected path of egress travel in a vertical or horizontal direction to the exit discharge or the public way.
 
cda said:
Does a Corridor meet the definition of exit enclosure :::EXIT ENCLOSURE. An exit component that is separated from other interior spaces of a building or structure by fire-resistance-rated construction and opening protectives, and provides for a protected path of egress travel in a vertical or horizontal direction to the exit discharge or the public way.
Click to expand...
Don't have the codes at home

I believe the definition of an exit does not include corridors in the listed components so No it is not part of an exit enclosure
 
Ask and he shall receive ;;;

Still say will be up to the ahj making the decision to approve this set up

EXIT. That portion of a means of egress system which is separated from other interior spaces of a building or structure by fire-resistance-rated construction and opening protectives as required to provide a protected path of egress travel 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.

And;;;;

CORRIDOR. An enclosed exit access component that defines and provides a path of egress travel to an exit.
 
cda said:
Not sure if that is it, but more of the

FUEL LOAD

Built a pretty corridor than fill it with combustibles, why built it in the first place???
Click to expand...
I am not disagreeing that there is merit to your position, however a corridor is a compenent of an exit access system, and while we have debated the merits of Section 1017, and are for the most part in agreement on the letter of the code, perhaps we should discuss the differences between an Exit Access Component (e.g. aisles, aisle accessways, corridors) and an Exit Component (e.g. exit enclosures, exit passageways, etc.). The latter, which makes no allowances, or exception, for any other activity/use within that component other than egress, while the former makes specific allowances for intervening spaces.

Where that line of specificity is drawn is what we are not agreeing on. The semantics are simple, call it a dining room and deny it, call it a lobby and approve it. The use of that lobby is more complicated. We can use it to sit in, read, dose off between visiting hours, drink coffee, talk, watch television, etc., but we can not eat a full meal there.

In this case, we do not agree that dining tables and chairs are an increased fire load over lounge chairs, couches and end tables typically found in a hospital corridor system/lobby? I simply don't see the disparity. Do you allow the nurse/reception stations to be in the corridor with built-in cabinetry, hundreds of paper files, and supplies? Are those not an equal if not greater fuel load in a corridor too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top