Means of egress exit components

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

I have an existing building where the exit and exit discharge are the same component.
I'm doing an addition to the building against the existing exit discharge.
To deal with this I have created an exit passageway between the existing building and the addition, which basically moves the exit discharge to another location.
So what was an exit discharge in the existing building now becomes an exit access, and the exit access travel distance remains unchanged.
Does this sound code compliant so far?

Secondly, is there a maximum travel distance within the exit passageway? I don't think so.

 

[RLGA]

So what was an exit discharge in the existing building now becomes an exit access, and the exit access travel distance remains unchanged.

No, the exit passageway is an exit. The exit access ends at the entry to the exit passageway; thus, as you stated, the exit access travel distance does not change.

To answer your first question: yes, this would be compliant.

As for your second question, there is no distance limitation within an exit component.

 

[walker.t]

Does this sound code compliant so far?

The concept is code compliant but I think you’re using the wrong terminology for one point.

So what was an exit discharge in the existing building now becomes an exit access, and the exit access travel distance remains unchanged.

The door into the exit passageway is not “exit access,” it is the end of your exit access because the door gives you access to an exit passageway; therefore that door is an exit. You have exit access leading up to the door giving you access to the exit passageway, once you go through the door and are in the exit passageway you are in the exit component of the means of egress system. See the IBC Chapter 2 definition of “Exit Access.”

is there a maximum travel distance within the exit passageway? I don't think so.

You are correct, there is not a maximum travel distance within the exit passageway.

Unsolicited comments:
1. I think you have some problems with the doors swinging into the exit passage way. Per 2021 IBC 1005.7.1 “doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half.”
2. Doesn’t look like you have the pull-side door maneuvering clearances on the door on the left part of the exit passageway (the part that goes up/down on the page.)
3. What’s that small room towards the lower-right of the plan, the door to the left of the double doors? Only occupied spaces can open into your exit passageway per 2021 IBC 1024.5. If it is occupied you need to give consideration to the push side clearance at the door because the door will have a closer because it’s in a rated wall.
4. The single-user restroom sure looks small, I’m assuming that’s new construction and will need to meet accessibility requirements for new construction.

 

[steveray]

What is the small room that opens into the exit passageway? If you don't have a travel distance issue, you don't need the protected exit, but once you get into the exit, the travel distance does stop...

 

[RLGA]

@VLADIMIR LEVIN: Looking more closely at your drawing, wherever you have "EXISTING EXIT/PROPOSED EXIT ACCESS," remove the "PROPOSED EXIT ACCESS." The door is still an exit since it leads to an exit passageway.

@walker.t: Regarding your first unsolicited comment, it really depends on the occupant load intended to use the exit passageway. The minimum width of an exit passageway is 44 inches. If 44 inches is all that is required based on the occupant load, then only 22 inches is required between the edge of the door swing and the wall. They show a dimension of 6'-8", so even a 48-inch door would not encroach more than 50% into the required egress width (again, assuming 44 inches is sufficient for the occupant load).

@VLADIMIR LEVIN: However, assuming north is up, the width of the north/south exit passageway does not have a dimension and appears to be narrower than the east/west exit passageway, which could be a problem for that door on the far left. Additionally, some of the door sizes appear to be disproportionate to those of other doors in the addition; therefore, these doors should be checked for accuracy to ensure the true widths are represented. Otherwise, you may need to widen the north/south exit passageway.

 

[Inspector 102]

If this floor plan is for an E occupancy, the corridor width would be 72 inches. I got burned on this one before and had the architect file for variance because the door encroached 3 inches too much. Never forget that one.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Also, doors swinging into means of egress corridors can't reduce the clear width to less than one-half of the required width when the door is open 90 degrees. Several doors in the sample plan seem to violate that provision.