What do you call this?

[SBerg]

Agreed, adding doors do not make separate corridors, it only adds a door to an exit path creating additional confusion in an emergency.

 

[globe trekker]

SBerg stated:

The minimum corridor width shall be 44".

Wouldn't Section 1017.2, Exception # 2 require only a 36" minimum corridor width?bldginsp,

Sometimes, alot of the forum members read and follow the various topics on here,

but because of limtations on their time / other responsibilities / or just choosing

to read and follow along, they / we do not join in. Please do not take any

offense. For the most part this a great bunch of people on here, with lots of

experience and a willingness to help.

.

 

[SBerg]

The noted exception is for building occupant capacity. Not corridor capacity.

Table 1005.1 is used when determining total occupant load egress with through exits.

 

[globe trekker]

I am not following how ' jp ' came up with an Occupant Capacity of 220.

Can someone please provide the formula or code section.

Thanks!

.

 

[bldginsp]

SBerg stated: Wouldn't Section 1017.2, Exception # 2 require only a 36" minimum corridor width?

bldginsp,

Sometimes, alot of the forum members read and follow the various topics on here,

but because of limtations on their time / other responsibilities / or just choosing

to read and follow along, they / we do not join in. Please do not take any

offense. For the most part this a great bunch of people on here, with lots of

experience and a willingness to help.

.

No offense taken. I just wanted to see how others were handling the same situation since the ICC takeover. I believe there needs to be some committee research into the way it's worded and some clarification needs to be inserted. I enjoy a good debate because I always learn something from it.

 

[jpranch]

globe, That was not the occupant load. It was the capacity of the 44" corridor. 44" / 0.2 = 220. Of course the capacity is always determined by the smallest egress component. Sooo, bldginsp is right on target. Look for the bottle necks!

 

[bldginsp]

I think the staff has been spending too much time in Washington. Your approach on capacity is right on target. I can certainly see where the word "served" can create some confusion. Dam I miss the old BOCA & CABO codes!

Amen to that jp, I got your message but I wanted to get this out there for others to view. I can't believe some of ICC's logic. This has been a great discussion in my book. I'll be awaiting Mule's input on this whole thing.

 

[KZQuixote]

globe, That was not the occupant load. It was the capacity of the 44" corridor. 44" / 0.2 = 220. Of course the capacity is always determined by the smallest egress component. Sooo, bldginsp is right on target. Look for the bottle necks!

Jpranch

Yes this is a very informative thread. How would the 36" back doors affect the capacity given that there is a double door at the main entrance?

bldginsp,

"The doors don't have to be kept closed" I'm assuming that they would either need to be closed or close automatically in an emergency. Am I missing something?

THanks

Bill

 

[bldginsp]

JpranchYes this is a very informative thread. How would the 36" back doors affect the capacity given that there is a double door at the main entrance?

bldginsp,

"The doors don't have to be kept closed" I'm assuming that they would either need to be closed or close automatically in an emergency. Am I missing something?

THanks

Bill

Not according to ICC as long as they make up the "enclosed" corridor. Go figure.

 

[Mule]

Okay...now that a floor plan has been posted. I agree that all corridors shall be rated in this situation.

Are ya'll happy now?

You know what though...this is the way a topic should be handled. Did you guys notice that there weren't any degrading comments and everybody was civil? That's the way it should be all the time. We can disagree with each other and still be civil.

Now.....I still think there are situations where the OL could be over 30 and still not require the hallway to be a rated corridor.

 

[jpranch]

"Are ya'll happy now? :smile: "

Mule, lmao! Thanks, I needed that.

 

[bldginsp]

Okay...now that a floor plan has been posted. I agree that all corridors shall be rated in this situation.Are ya'll happy now?

You know what though...this is the way a topic should be handled. Did you guys notice that there weren't any degrading comments and everybody was civil? That's the way it should be all the time. We can disagree with each other and still be civil.

Now.....I still think there are situations where the OL could be over 30 and still not require the hallway to be a rated corridor.

And Mule, I bet that somewhere out there, when someone was following along and just reading, they learned something. That's what this thread was all about and thanks for the computer lesson, even I learned something, how to resize pictures.

 

[FredK]

Glad a picture was posted. One corridor with three exits provided. 1-hr rating if no sprinklers.

If you decide to block off any part of the existing corridors then with the less than 30 no rating just be sure there's no dead ends.

Some times the picture is worth a better wait and response than thinking about all the other possiblities IMHO.

 

[SBerg]

So, if the ICC guru's say it's acceptable to divide the corridors into smaller spaces to accomplish less than 31 occupant loads do they require 20 minute door assemblies? Or is it acceptable to move from one clear space (corridor) to a smoke-filled space to find an exit? I believe the ICC interpretation is incorrect. JMHO.

AND if the corridors are divided, are rated door required? I only ask because these rated doors are required to have seal, latches and closers. Now how do they handle accessibility, specifically door maneuvering spaces?

 

[bldginsp]

SBerg, I hear your concern and I agree with you on their interp.

 

[Mule]

So, if the ICC guru's say it's acceptable to divide the corridors into smaller spaces to accomplish less than 31 occupant loads do they require 20 minute door assemblies? Or is it acceptable to move from one clear space (corridor) to a smoke-filled space to find an exit? I believe the ICC interpretation is incorrect. JMHO.AND if the corridors are divided, are rated door required? I only ask because these rated doors are required to have seal, latches and closers. Now how do they handle accessibility, specifically door maneuvering spaces?

If the corridors are split so that the OL is under 30 then no requirements for doors exist because it is no longer required. That is what I have been trying to get at from the very beginning. It all depends on how the building is layed out. You may have a building that has a total OL of over 30 but still not require rated corridors. Just like the ICC interpretation. .........I wish I had an icon to stick out my tongue!

 

[mtlogcabin]

You know what though...this is the way a topic should be handled. Did you guys notice that there weren't any degrading comments and everybody was civil? That's the way it should be all the time. We can disagree with each other and still be civil.

Just read the entire post and I agree with the others. Corridor should be rated and the ICC answer is ridiculous.

Mule: Well said

 

[bldginsp]

If the corridors are split so that the OL is under 30 then no requirements for doors exist because it is no longer required. That is what I have been trying to get at from the very beginning. It all depends on how the building is layed out. You may have a building that has a total OL of over 30 but still not require rated corridors. Just like the ICC interpretation. .........I wish I had an icon to stick out my tongue!

Yep Mule that's exactly what was said by ICC. Does it make good sense to do it that way, probably not but all I have to show in court when something goes wrong is that it met the building code in effect at the time. In this scenario it was, as I consider a good friend to say, "Built to Code = Building the worst that the code will allow"!

 

[FM William Burns]

Little late but.................. based on title of the topic......the answer is "a code violation or deficiency". I agree with others whereas exhibited; the corridor requires a 1-hour fire resistance rating regardless of what the ICC staff may have said. In the event the facility had (3) separate tenants and the corridors were closed and subdivided the building to only serve the tenant, the rating would be moot and I think that's what ICC intends in their explination but as described and depicted, the building exceeds the OL kicking in a rated assembly, period.