# <49 occupants, but >100' = 2 exits?  1006.2.1 vs. 1017.2



## Keith (Jul 16, 2018)

With less than 49 occupants, Does more than 100' distance to exit trigger requirement for 2 exits?  (CBC 1006.2.1)  (Sprinklered building - B occupancy)

I have a space with less than 49 occupants, which only requires 1 exit, *but distance to the exit is more than 100', so* plan checker says more than 100' distance to exit in a sprinklered bldg per 1006.2.1 requires 2 exits.

Any clarifications on this I can share with the plan checker or is he right?
Thanks!


----------



## RLGA (Jul 16, 2018)

It’s called “common path of egress travel.” It cannot be more than 75 feet and is permitted to be 100 feet in some occupancies when a sprinkler system is installed.


----------



## cda (Jul 16, 2018)

Words of wisdom:


http://www.specsandcodes.com/articles/code_corner/The Code Corner No. 29 - Travel Distance.pdf


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 16, 2018)

to be short - yes


----------



## JBI (Jul 16, 2018)

Occupant load and travel distance to an exit are two separate and distinct triggers for requiring 2 exits.
Either one can trigger the requirement.


----------



## Keith (Jul 17, 2018)

Doesn't common path only apply  to when 2 exits are required based on occupant load?


----------



## RLGA (Jul 17, 2018)

Keith said:


> Doesn't common path only apply  to when 2 exits are required based on occupant load?


The common path of egress travel (CPET) is the single path that occupants must take before a point is reached where two distinct paths to two separate exits is provided. In your room with the single exit, the CPET, at a minimum, is the distance from the most remote point in the room to the exit access door. If this distance is greater than 75 feet (or 100 feet for some occupancies with a sprinkler system) then the common path distance is exceeded and a second means of egress out of the space is required, or the one door must be relocated so that the distance is within the maximum allowed. If the door leads to a dead end corridor, then the distance through the dead end corridor must be added to the distance from within the room.


----------



## RLGA (Jul 17, 2018)

I should add that a room with two means of egress (e.g., two exit access doorways) will very likely not have a common path of egress travel, since the occupant can take two separate paths from any point within the room--one separate path to each door. 

Each story is required to have, at a minimum, two exits regardless of occupant load (See Table 1006.3.2, 2018 IBC), unless it qualifies for one exit per Tables 1006.3.3(1) or 1006.3.3(2)  (2018 IBC). If a story has 500 or less occupants, every space within that story must have access to those two exits, unless a space that is permitted a single means of egress per Table 1006.2.1 has an exit that discharges directly to the exterior at the level of exit discharge (Section 1006.3.3, Exception 2, 2018 IBC). The path to each each exit must be separate and distinct from the path to the other exit, except that the initial portion of the path may be a single path (i.e., the common path of egress travel), provided that it is no longer than the distance permitted (75 feet or 100 feet, depending on the conditions as previously mentioned). One of those paths must be within the travel distance limitation required by Table 1017.2 (2018 IBC).


----------



## RLGA (Jul 17, 2018)

I forgot that you mentioned you're using the CBC. In that case, the 2018 IBC references won't match exactly with the 2016 CBC. Here are the cross references to those that differ:

2018 IBC, Table 1006.3.2 ---> 2016 CBC, Table 1006.3.1
2018 IBC, Tables 1006.3.3(1) and (2) ---> 2016 CBC, Tables 1006.3.2(1) and (2)
2018 IBC, Section 1006.3.3, Exception 2 ---> 2016 CBC, Section 1006.3.2, Exception 2


----------



## Sifu (Jul 18, 2018)

But does it necessarily require a second exit (access)?  If you aren't that far off, a reconfiguration of the space MAY decrease the travel distance one is required to traverse on the way to the exit..


----------



## sergoodo (Jul 20, 2018)

Sifu said:


> But does it necessarily require a second exit (access)?  If you aren't that far off, a reconfiguration of the space MAY decrease the travel distance one is required to traverse on the way to the exit..



The minimum requirements for the life safety is provided by the building code. Why risk life safety on the subjective travel distance requirement and make (not MAY make) the expert witnesses's job so easy with "nope, look at this pretty exhibit: The travel distance calculates to 101ft , which does not meet the minimum requirements of life safety...unfortunate the occupants did not know" Let's say the unfortunate died in their sleep from a sewer gas leak - you still are sunk.

The code provides solutions: Take a 110ft travel distance, just move your exit 11ft and make the travel distance 99' with a rated tunnel for the remainder 11ft.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 23, 2018)

sergoodo -- unless you make that a exit passageway that will not fly, because you still are traveling 110 feet to the "exit". If you are creating a horizontal exit passageway, it must meet the same requirements as a stairway.


----------

