• 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.

Question for plan reviewers..............today's rant

J

JPohling

SAWHORSE
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,685
Location
San Diego
2017 Ohio Building Code in play.

My question has to do with the measurement of travel distance. This is for a mercantile tenant. This is a mattress store that has bed displays with nightstands adjacent to each bed setup. Our travel distance measurement has been taken from the face of the nightstand from the most remote groupings within the space. Our max travel distance measures anywhere from 60' to 80' from these locations. The initial round of comments were addressed and we were expecting permit approval. The third party reviewer comes back with a single correction that: the measurement must be from the most remote point (the wall surface beyond the nightstand) so this will add another 2' to each measurement.

Non sprinkled building so 200' is our maximum distance. So it has no bearing whatsoever and has easily been corrected per their request

Ohio code language below.

1680290730582.png

This seems like someone that is paid by the review cycles making a little extra cash or somehow we have been doing this wrong for years.
What are your opinions.
 
( = = = )

In your application, it seems that the additional 2 ft. will not affect your
travel distance measurement, so compose a polite reply to the plan reviewer
and move along..........I suppose that he or she is enforcing the actual
letter of the Code.

The remote point, IMO, would be where a person would be against an
actual part of the bldg. ( e.g. - immoveable ) and not a piece of furniture
( e.g. - moveable ).

Suppose the merchant reconfigures the mattress area display and now
there is an open area where the nightstands used to be ?

( = = = )
 
North, thanks for the response.

My thoughts on that would be then we would just not show any furnishings at all and measure from the most remote wall surface and then we would typically have shorter travel distances as we would not be jogging around these obstructions. The measurement directions are from a natural and unobstructed path. Is that just for the path itself and not the starting point?
 
Not from on the bed against the headboard?

Been looking at restaurant seating and booths - like the big round one in a corner - and wondering where that is measured. And if on a platform - a step up - how does that affect it.
 
Does the code take in the merchants bed and night stand placement? I think I would measure from the most remote area in the store to the exit as the crow flies. I hope we're not this detailed as to go in after the plans have been approved and the building's been built and tell the merchant that the posturepedic is in the wrong place and needs to be moved to meet the egress route. Cuz you know thats's gonna happen.

Now this maybe a different story if there are fixed walls displays like you see in furniture stores with the tract lighting shinning on them? You would have to go around them? Even those set-ups can be moved over time.
 
% > * < %

JPohling, I have seen plans submitted with just the actual, bare floor plan
and plans submitted with the current setup, in one submittal package.
That seems to cover both travel distance requirements.

IMO, ...most people will not travel "as the crow flies" in an emergency.

% < * > %
 
I think there a couple of things here: 1st) there is no codified method for how and where to specifically measure from or how, 2nd) "natural path" is subjective, and would change with every new placement of merchandise, 3rd) as you pointed out, it has no bearing, IT ISN"T EVEN CLOSE. If there were 1st round comments and this comment was made, no big deal. I wouldn't have, but no real harm in it. But a double dip 2nd rounder that serves no purpose? Bad form, to say the least.
 
Sifu said:
3rd) as you pointed out, it has no bearing, IT ISN"T EVEN CLOSE. If there were 1st round comments and this comment was made, no big deal. I wouldn't have, but no real harm in it. But a double dip 2nd rounder that serves no purpose? Bad form, to say the least.
Click to expand...
I think that's the OP's main point - - not wanting to argue about the finer points of how to measure travel distance - - rather, that with well over 100' of travel distance to spare, why is the checker quibbling over 2'?

When this happens in California, in my experience 90% of the time the building department farmed out the plan check to a 3rd party consulting firm, who in turn farmed it out to an independent consultant who gets paid per-round of plan check. Sometimes I've seen the same independent consultant work for 2 different plan check firms simultaneously, trying to cobble together a living wage.
 
Yikes said:
90% of the time the building department farmed out the plan check to a 3rd party consulting firm
Click to expand...
The third party firms also provide inspectors. The inspectors look for opportunities to send the project back to plan check engineers. Move a window a foot and see what happens.
 
The plan examiner is applying the printed code; I would apply "judgement and common sense" and acknowledge that an extra step or two is irrelevant and move the review along.
 
steveray said:
I would revise your procedures....Most remote point and right angles and you will never be wrong...Unless someone creates a dead end with furniture....

I also agree that the plan checker is a little ridiculous if you make TD by double and it is not a CPET issue...
Click to expand...
We always use right angles per code on the measurements. The path is always on the natural and unobstructed path. His comment was to measure from the wall surface rather than from the face of the furniture object 2' from the wall. So evidently that obstruction is not something that we should consider. Fine. We had 120' of available travel distance still available. GO AZTECS!
 
JPohling said:
We always use right angles per code on the measurements. The path is always on the natural and unobstructed path. His comment was to measure from the wall surface rather than from the face of the furniture object 2' from the wall. So evidently that obstruction is not something that we should consider. Fine. We had 120' of available travel distance still available. GO AZTECS!
Click to expand...
I get it, but furniture is apt to move....If it were cabinets I would be way OK with that....
 
I've seen 18" to 2 feet from the wall and parallel to the wall being accepted. This would be the centerline of the path, rather than the outside edge. Few people walk with their shoulder against the wall.
 
If you want to guarantee nothing will be put in the room I will let you measure it straight...

1017.3 Measurement.​

Exit access travel distance shall be measured from the most remote point of each room, area or space along the natural and unobstructed path of horizontal and vertical egress travel to the entrance to an exit. Where more than one exit is required, exit access travel distance shall be measured to the nearest exit.

Exceptions:
  1. 1.In open parking garages, exit access travel distance is permitted to be measured to the closest riser of an exit access stairway or the closest slope of an exit access ramp.
  2. 2.In smoke protected seating and open air assembly seating, exit access travel distance shall be measured in accordance with Section 1030.7.
❖ The length of exit access travel, as measured from the most remote point within a structure to an exit, is limited to restrict the amount of time that the occupant is exposed to a potential fire condition [see Commentary Figure 1017.3(1)]. The route must be assumed to be the natural path of travel without obstruction. This commonly results in a rectilinear path similar to what can be experienced in most occupancies, such as a schoolroom or an office with rows of desks [see Commentary Figure 1017.3(2)]. The “arc” method, using an “as the crow flies” linear measurement, must be used with caution, as it seldom represents typical floor design and room layout and, in most cases, would not be the natural, unobstructed path.
 
bill1952 said:
Code section?
Click to expand...
Bill that statement was in error. no code language that I am aware of specifies right angles. But it seems to be an accepted standard across the country. we have had to modify too many diagonal paths to continue with that method.
 
Paul Sweet said:
I've seen 18" to 2 feet from the wall and parallel to the wall being accepted. This would be the centerline of the path, rather than the outside edge.
Click to expand...
With my back to the wall I can make 2ft work, are we sure theres no rest stops to be considered on our way to the egress exit?
 
JPohling said:
Bill that statement was in error. no code language that I am aware of specifies right angles. But it seems to be an accepted standard across the country. we have had to modify too many diagonal paths to continue with that method.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I just work on too many odd shaped spaces with unusual obstructions - stages, auditoriums, etc. - for this to regularily make sense.
 
The exit path should be parallel to the walls, and not a diagonal shortcut. It would be at right angles in rectangular rooms, but not in rooms with walls at different angles or curved walls.
 
Here is the previous correction for the plan reviewer where he wanted the angled path to the exit door changed to an orthogonal path. The previous iteration had a short diagonal instead of the 90 degree jog. Max exit access dim at 76'. 200' allowed. Then upon this resubmital the nightstand issue was added as a correction. This previous path started at the face of nightstand and no comment was made at that time.
1680714580030.png
 
Just had this conversation today. Diagonal path across a classroom. Even though the chairs/desks could be arranged any way they want, I advised that they needed to follow the most likely path. I look for the worst case to work, if it doesn't then some justification for an alternate path must be provided and approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top