• 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

Corridor Width

M

Marshal Chris

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Long Island, NY
Hello all..

Just FYI, I'm using NYS Version of I-codes and have a question on the verbage within 1016.2 Exception 4.

4. Seventy-two inches (1829 mm)—In Group E with a corridor having a required capacity of 100 or more.

What's with the word "required" in there?

This is my situation, I have a corridor, constructed @ 66 inches, Group E (obviously). It's for a preschool type occupancy. Corridor wraps around the buidling, occupant load is

162 Children

27 Teachers

2 office staff

191 Total.

All classrooms have exits to outside, buidling sprinklered. Stumbled on 6 foot width verbage during the "final" inspection.

I read the code as where the corridor is serving 100 or more, it needs to be a minimum 72 inches.

Anyone clarify?

Thanks.
 
you do not have a corridor that is serving 100 or more.

half of the rooms occupants, in an emergency, travel through the corridor, half of the rooms occupants, exit to outside
 
It sounds like the "required" capacity of the corridor could be less than 100 since the classroom have direct exits to the outside. The key is if the classrooms are small enough that a single exit is permitted.
 
Coug Dad said:
The key is if the classrooms are small enough that a single exit is permitted.
Click to expand...
even if the room is "small enough that a single exit is permitted" and you have two exits, half are assumed to travel through each exit.
 
I disagree with your opinion, but half of 191 would still be less than 100 or the "required" egress capacity of the corridor. What do you want them to do at this point? Rip out the corridor walls to pick up a few inches?
 
Okay, here's my opinion.

Required....There are specific guidlines when determining occupant loads. When we (BO's, DP, or Plan reviewers) determine the OL based on occupancy ans square footage of the room, we have an OL of X amount...Say 105 for grins.

A school, or whatever says, well there will never be that many people in there, there will only be 95 people in there because that the State allows per teacher or for whatever reason they give you.

You have a "required" OL of 105 even though the school says 95. Therefore the corridor width would be......

4. Seventy-two inches (1829 mm)—In Group E with a corridor having a required capacity of 100 or more.

Just my thoughts!
 
even if the room is "small enough that a single exit is permitted" and you have two exits, half are assumed to travel through each exit.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Mark on this one

1005.1 Minimum required egress width.

.... Multiple means of egress shall be sized such that the loss of any one means of egress shall not reduce the available capacity to less than 50 percent of the required capacity.
 
The occupant load evenly distributed among the exits, is a code basic. It determains the exit width.
 
Mule said:
A school, or whatever says, well there will never be that many people in there, there will only be 95 people in there because that the State allows per teacher or for whatever reason they give you.
Click to expand...
It's based on Sq. ft not what the state says about how many teaches may or maynot be there.
 
and if you only have two required exits in a 200 person building and one is blocked then what do half the people that were suppose to use that exit do???

I have heard this before and disagree, to me if 200 people are in a building with a corridor then 200 people could possibly use it and would have to be built to whatever code requriements there are.
 
cda, in most cases the code specifies minimum widths based upon the total occupant load. This is one case where it specifically deals with the "required" load on the corridor. If the classrooms each have a direct exit to the outside, then the "required" load on the corridor is less than 100 so the 72 inch rule does not apply.
 
the 191 is the calculated load.

CD, I'm at a loss, I don't want them to rip out walls and make it six foot, I'm looking to see if I was reading it right, which I wasn't apparently, and I suggested they seek a variance from the state.

if we consider the loss of one exit, being the outside direct exit, that adds a minimum of 6 more people (smallest classroom) in the corridor, making it 101.

I don't know if that statement even affects the required corridor width.
 
Coug Dad

I should have added if two exits are required, the one directly to the outside and the corridor

but even with that o me you still have a corridor which is noramly going to be used????????????
 
Well I stand maybe corrected in the 2003 commentary section 1016.2 it seems to say you can split the occcupant load, still disagree with that and it is the commentary

so Chris if you have a copy of the commentary read the first commentary paragraph
 
cda said:
Well I stand maybe corrected in the 2003 commentary section 1016.2 it seems to say you can split the occcupant load, still disagree with that and it is the commentary so Chris if you have a copy of the commentary read the first commentary paragraph
Click to expand...
disregard. asked and answered......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
marshal chris said:
thanks everyone for your help. Just curious, if there were 3 exits in the room, would it be 33%?
Click to expand...
yes but one would need to be 34% to equil 100%

BUT, DIREGARD MY COMMENTS, IF THE TWO OR MORE, EXITS BOTH ENTER THE SAME CORIDOOR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must be getting jaded. This wouldn't be a case where I'd require a correction since it was obviously missed during both plan review and the rough inspection. I was taught long ago that the only time a tape measure should come off your belt on a final inspection is when they were so close at rough that the finish materials may have made them non-compliant. In those cases, there should be advanced warning to the contractor. We're talking 6" off here. This isn't a finish-out issue. The inspectors responsiblity is to inspect to the approved plan - not to re-perform plan review after the job is done.

I wouldn't lose sleep over this one. I feel confident you'll never see this quote: "If that corridor had only been 6" wider, all those kids would still be alive."

Like I said, jaded. :)
 
Who is responsible for plan review and inspection of the means of egress? This shouldn't be left for a final inspection any more than the sprinkler system should be.

I need to clarify my position, as it wasn't clear above. I agree that this corridor is serving less than 100 occupants and doesn't need to be 72" anyway. If the occupant load of each classroom is under 50, I wouldn't expect the DP to show the corridor as part of the egress plan for the classrooms at all. The corridor isn't likely to be shown as an element for egress in the Fire Evacuation Plan required by the IFC, either. I think the whole thing is a non-issue.
 
The building dept does their own plan review and inspections. We (Fire Marshal's Office) also do plan review for new construction, alterations and systems.

During the inspection, I was wondering how this had made it this far without someone else picking it up, however mistakes happen, and things have been known to slip by. After reviewing further, I've already agreed that it's a non issue, but a great learning experience for me.

As far as inspections... We have a hard enough time keeping up with everything as is. We don't have time to do rough inspections for all systems and alterations. The party gets a permit, they construct, calls us for a final. Sometimes, big ticket items have come up at our finals. I know it sounds dysfunctional...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top