# 1003.6 Corridor Obstructions



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 14, 2011)

Seeking opinions; Corridor is wider than required; installation of fixed wood benches one side of the corridor walls.

*1003.6 Means of egress continuity. *The path of egress travel

along a _means of egress _shall not be interrupted by any building

element other than a _means of egress _component as specified in

this chapter. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required

width of a _means of egress _except projections permitted by this

chapter. The required capacity of a _means of egress _system

shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel.

As always appreciate all of your feedbacks.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

Are the benches, as placed, an Obstruction? Maybe, Maybe not.

Is the proper corridor width maintained when people are seated in the benches?


----------



## alora (Jul 14, 2011)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> ...; Corridor is wider than required; ...Obstructions shall not be placed in the required
> 
> width of a _means of egress _...


I think you answered your own question by reading/quoting the code.


----------



## rooster (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Are the benches, as placed, an Obstruction? Maybe, Maybe not.Is the proper corridor width maintained when people are seated in the benches?


Do you have to account for a person sitting on the bench?  In which case, do you have to account for a person standing in a corridor, or a person drinking at a water fountain?  It might be better to let that person know that the building's burning.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

rooster said:
			
		

> Do you have to account for a person sitting on the bench?  In which case, do you have to account for a person standing in a corridor, or a person drinking at a water fountain?  It might be better to let that person know that the building's burning.


Egress is not just at a burning building.


----------



## rooster (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Egress is not just at a burning building.


Point taken.  I guess what I'd like to know is where does the code say a person can become an obstruction?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

If a seated person needs to move for a person to use the Corridor they are an obstruction. The code cannot define every obstruction, the code book would be the size of the library of congress

The code book relys on the person using it to have some sense, not common sense


----------



## rooster (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If a seated person needs to move for a person to use the Corridor they are an obstruction. The code cannot define every obstruction, the code book would be the size of the library of congressThe code book relys on the person using it to have some sense, not common sense


What does sense have to do with the code?  For crying out loud, you can have a door swing into half of the egress width.  Sounds like a good way to knock someone "sense"less.

I need to know where it says that if a person encroaches on the required egress width while using an object not within the egress width, then that person is considered an obstruction and must be taken into account.

I'm not trying to be a pita, but what about the case of a water fountain?  Taking into account a person in a wheelchair using a water fountain would add feet to the width.  Is there a difference between someone using a chair and a water fountain?

The code cannot define every obstruction...and the designer can't account for every situation.  If it's in the code, that's one thing, but if it just makes sense, then that goes in the category of good/bad designer...and it'll be up to the client to determine that.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 14, 2011)

I have always considered occupants to not be obstructions, otherwise aisles would never have the required clearances to allow for egress.  However, this discussion does bring up an interesting point, in that unconscious occupants may present an obstruction to the means of egress, and it may be in the designers best interest to consider such situations.  We certainly consider them for doors within series, not sure why would not consider them here too, other than the code does not specifically address the space occupants take up (i.e., assembly standing spaces, etc.).  Possibly why two means of egress are required at the Common Path of Travel distance.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

You need to maintain a clear Path of travel


----------



## rooster (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You need to maintain a clear Path of travel


This isn't regarding means of egress.  this is accessibility which will be a different width altogether.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

rooster said:
			
		

> This isn't regarding means of egress.  this is accessibility which will be a different width altogether.


That's the problem, you *MUST* provide both


----------



## rooster (Jul 14, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I have always considered occupants to not be obstructions, otherwise aisles would never have the required clearances to allow for egress.  However, this discussion does bring up an interesting point, in that unconscious occupants may present an obstruction to the means of egress, and it may be in the designers best interest to consider such situations.  We certainly consider them for doors within series, not sure why would not consider them here too, other than the code does not specifically address the space occupants take up (i.e., assembly standing spaces, etc.).  Possibly why two means of egress are required at the Common Path of Travel distance.


Isn't the doors in a series requirement to prevent interference?

So given this example, where would it end?  is the person sitting a man, woman, child?  are they crossing their legs, slouching?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

You must maintain a clear means of egress (POT). The required capacity of a means of egress system shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel


----------



## rooster (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> That's the problem, you *MUST* provide both


yes, I understand this, and in many situations the egress width is much wider than the accessible path.

Where does the code say with reference to means of egress, I have to take into account the user of a building as an obstruction.


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

rooster said:
			
		

> yes, I understand this, and in many situations the egress width is much wider than the accessible path.Where does the code say with reference to means of egress, I have to take into account the user of a building as an obstruction.


It doesn't, and to require it is beyond the scope of code. If you provide benches, and provide the requisite wheelchair clearance, there is nothing whatsoever that says you must account for people sitting in those benches, provided minimum egress width and handicapped accessibility width are provided.


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I have always considered occupants to not be obstructions, otherwise aisles would never have the required clearances to allow for egress.  However, this discussion does bring up an interesting point, in that unconscious occupants may present an obstruction to the means of egress, and it may be in the designers best interest to consider such situations.  We certainly consider them for doors within series, not sure why would not consider them here too,


Your question



> Papio Bldg Dept other than the code does not specifically address the space occupants take up


Your answer


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

Even if furniture, plants, trash cans, etc items were placed outside of the required corridor width, these items will get pushed and moved during a panic situation an tripping hazards, many fire departments prohibit them.


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Even if furniture, plants, trash cans, etc items were placed outside of the required corridor width, these items will get pushed and moved during a panic situation an tripping hazards, many fire departments prohibit them.


That may be so, but it's not code. Section 1028.5, 2006 IFC even recognizes that furnishings and decorative objects will be placed, and simply says they shall not obstruct exits.

Am I surprised some FD's prohibit them? Of course not. But that's not code. I guess they could say ceiling tiles could fall out and obstruct exits too...


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 14, 2011)

So if the 2nd and last sentence of 1003.6 is comparable to 1028.4 where it deleted the permanent partition or railing to separate the required width that was in the 2006. 

Then what is the purpose of the 1st sentence; "The path of egress travel along a _means of egress _shall not be interrupted by any building element other than a _means of egress _component as specified in this chapter.”? This allows other obstructions than the building elements; doors, water fountains, buttress; etc. outside of the required width?


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

1028.4, 2009 IBC, A-1 occupancies?

Not sure it's really relevant here, but just looking at it, it contains the words "required clear width of the means of egress" too, which is pretty consistent throughout the code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2011)

> these items will get pushed and moved during a panic situation


and the people sitting on the benches will just sit there and watch the panic go by..


----------



## Frank (Jul 14, 2011)

In a panic situation even a change in direction after going through a door can cause a pileup.

At The Station in RI the corridor turned approaching the front door and there was a railing across the front of the doors where the path of egress split to go down steps one way and a ramp the other--each of which was wider than the doors.

The need to turn when leaving the door created a slowdown and a literal traffic jam.

The double doors jammed solid with people--many of the injuries were scrapes tears and avulsions as people jammed tight in the doorway were forcibly pulled out of the pile by people already outside.

There was a survivor in the pile that were found by the firemen when they unstacked the pile after the fire was extinguished.  The first arriving unit put a hose stream on the pile of people at the entrance.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=100988


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> and the people sitting on the benches will just sit there and watch the panic go by..


It's all the time, not just at *Panic Times*


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

What is all the time? Benches? Are you saying benches is all the time?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> What is all the time? Benches? Are you saying benches is all the time?


Clear POT....


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 14, 2011)

rooster said:
			
		

> Isn't the doors in a series requirement to prevent interference?So given this example, where would it end?  is the person sitting a man, woman, child?  are they crossing their legs, slouching?


The best example I can think of, and this is different from the seating example mark is posting, is a hallway service (walk-up counter).  Typically your hallway is around 5' wide, if not wider, and there is often a que (i was reading the Palaearctic-African Songbird Migration forum again and i get a bit british).  This que can often times encroach into the minimum required accessible means of egress component, in this case path of travel.  In this instance, do we assume as in the diagram that mark provided, if the corridor is 36" wide, could not the bench be fronted on the edge of that width.  The code says that the clear width shall be provided, and unobstructed, but does not clarify what, or whom, it considers to be an obstruction, let alone whether they are seated or standing.

I would think, when I have my designer hat on, it would be slightly irresponsible to not consider occupant congestion/obstruction in corridors and its effects on the means of egress system.  As mark stated, the means of egress is not only for emergencies, it is also intended for access too.

Last I checked, the code does not cover sit-ins either, benches or nor benches.  But an accessible bench will also need to be provided when you provide those wood fixed benches.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

1018.3 Corridor obstruction. The required width of corridors *shall be unobstructed.*

Clear and simple, it does not say _when the bell is ringing and lights are flashing_ .*All the time,  all obstructions.*


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I would think, when I have my designer hat on, it would be slightly irresponsible to not consider occupant congestion/obstruction in corridors and its effects on the means of egress system.


That is taken care of by occupant load calculations and required exit width. If you are willing to consider a sitting person an obstruction, what gives you the authority not to consider a walker an obstruction, or to give you a visual, a couple of fat chicks walking side by side?


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 1018.3 Corridor obstruction. The *required* width of corridors *shall be unobstructed.*Clear and simple, it does not say _when the bell is ringing and lights are flashing_ .*All the time,  all obstructions.*


I agree, and by all means, I suggest keeping those benches out of the *required* corridor width.


----------



## rooster (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If a seated person needs to move for a person to use the Corridor they are an obstruction. The code cannot define every obstruction, the code book would be the size of the library of congressThe code book relys on the person using it to have some sense, not common sense


I think the operative word in this statement is "move."  The users of a building are assumed to be alive and able to move (unless it's a hospital or a morgue, which I'm sure would have their own sets of requirements).


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 14, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> That is taken care of by occupant load calculations and required exit width. If you are willing to consider a sitting person an obstruction, what gives you the authority not to consider a walker an obstruction?


Are you talking about egress width, or exit width?  An open gymnasium at maximum standing occupancy (1/5sf) would then have an obstructed means of egress?



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> I agree, and by all means, I suggest keeping those benches out of the *required* corridor width.


I think the question now, is not the benches being in the required corridor width (unless I missed something, everyone agrees a bench is an obstruction), but rather the people sitting in them.


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Are you talking about egress width, or exit width?  An open gymnasium at maximum standing occupancy (1/5sf) would then have an obstructed means of egress?


I thought we were talking about corridor width here? I don't understand your reference to a gymnasium, but occupant load calculations determine required widths (above the minimum dimension), so yes, it would take care of itself regardless of what exit component you're talking about.



> I think the question now, is not the benches being in the required corridor width (unless I missed something, everyone agrees a bench is an obstruction), but rather the people sitting in them.


Yes, I understand. I was trying to ignore the fact that we're actually discussing the proposition of human beings constituting a corridor obstruction...


----------



## High Desert (Jul 14, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Yes, I understand. I was trying to ignore the fact that we're actually discussing the proposition of human beings constituting a corridor obstruction...


I'm gonna sic the fire marshal on that slow guy in the hallway the next time he obstructs my ability to find the exit.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 14, 2011)

Appreciate the clarifications; the path of egress travel (POT) in the 1st sentence of 1003.6 is the minimum required width portion. 

Benches, tables, vending machines are permitted but they have to be non-combustibles; and assuming the code requires they be fixed. 

Mark H. brought up a good point about accessibility; if they have benches; chairs or tables then 1109.10 (1109.11 – 2006) applies even though it’s in a corridor?

And if the corridor is 8’ wide; which in this instance it is, and the required width is 44 inches; then objects can be placed on each side of the corridor walls with the POT down the center (similar to 1028.4)?


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> I'm gonna sic the fire marshal on that slow guy in the hallway the next time he obstructs my ability to find the exit.


And the two fat chicks are getting citations.


----------



## texasbo (Jul 14, 2011)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Appreciate the clarifications; the path of egress travel (POT) in the 1st sentence of 1003.6 is the minimum required width portion. Benches, tables, vending machines are permitted but they have to be non-combustibles; and assuming the code requires they be fixed.
> 
> Mark H. brought up a good point about accessibility; if they have benches; chairs or tables then 1109.10 (1109.11 – 2006) applies even though it’s in a corridor?
> 
> And if the corridor is 8’ wide; which in this instance it is, and the required width is 44 inches; then objects can be placed on each side of the corridor walls with the POT down the center (similar to 1028.4)?


That's obviously my opinion, but there are clearly others here, whose opinions are sound, who disagree. Mark does make a good point about the handicapped accommodations.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 15, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Yes, I understand. I was trying to ignore the fact that we're actually discussing the proposition of human beings constituting a corridor obstruction...


More than understandable.  I was simply going along for the ride myself.  The gymnasium example was in reference to what your were trying to ignore...and my reasoning for why hbs being obstructions bordered on ridiculous in terms of code, but has some merits when it comes to design and function of a space.  I am currently reviewing a trampoline dodgeball occupancy where the users will wait in line outside the dodgeball room for their turn to play.  No seating provided, just a standing cue.  The free jump room holds an 80+ occupant load, and users will also wait outside for their turn.  The corridors are 10', but still, it isn't hard to imagine some congestion.  I wouldn't call them an obstruction however.


----------

