• 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

Exit access door separation

If the space is being reconfigured, why not move the conference room from the corner and move it up the corridor where two exits could be provided, add a door to ensure proper means of egress for the egress, then ensure rest of corridor is less than 49 occupants with less than 75 feet of travel to CPT ?

View attachment 3007


I don’t think exiting from the conference room is the problem with it,

Problem it adds a few more bodies.
 
I don’t think exiting from the conference room is the problem with it,

Problem it adds a few more bodies.
If the conference room was moved as BB suggests, it could expand to the right to the corridor wall. In that case, it could have its own exit access door to the corridor and all the occupants in the conference room can egress through that door. Thus, the remaining office space now has an occupant load less than 50, thereby only requiring one exit access door (provided the CPET is less than 75 feet from the more remote areas of the suite).
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
I cant see a way to approve this as shown no separation of exits and I would bet travel distance does not comply as well.

Agree with Ron above to directly exit some occupants to reduce occupant load, but travel distance still looks questionable.
 
Travel distance is ok but I will let them decide if they want to reconfigure their space. What I haven't shown yall yet but what the he//: The stair cores do not meet separation. Even when built. The building was constructed in 1974, I do not know the code edition used but it would have been the UBC. The 1970 UBC arrangement requirements were that they be separated by 1/5 of the building perimeter. This was changed in later editions to the current 1/2 diagonal. The perimeter of the building is 545' (=/-), requiring 109'. The diagonal is 192', requiring 96'. The cores are separated by about 60'.

What fun!
 
Are the corridors rated? If so, per Section 1015.2.1, Exception 2, the distance can be measured using the shortest distance along the corridor.
 
Well, that is another question entirely. I have required them to rate the corridors and openings as they improve each space, but the open corridors, bathrooms and elevators pretty much kill that strategy, and believe me, nobody is happy with that. I don't think the provision for measuring down the corridor is included in the 1970 UBC either, which makes the whole thing about as clear as mud. If it was, we simply go by the code under which it was built. If it wasn't, we pick the current code to allow it. Either way, the hoist-ways and open corridors presents an issue.
 
I do have a copy of the 1970 UBC, and it does not have that requirement for measuring exit separation.

However, the 1973 UBC (which I also have) does add an exception to Section 3302(c), provided that the corridor is constructed per Section 3304(g). Also, the exception requires a minimum 30-foot separation between exit enclosures, that is still present to this day. Section 3304(g) requires 1-hour construction for corridors with an occupant load of 30 or more (similar to the 1970 UBC, but slightly modified).
 
Yes, I have the UBC's, but I never want to make a definitive statement about a code unless I am sure, and with the UBC I am never quite sure (or the IBC, SBCC, NFPA etc.). It's kind of a moot point anyway, not going to move a stair core, but it does come in to play when someone wants to stretch the code a little further.
 
Top