# 2006 IFC; difference between dead end versus path of common travel



## firemanx (Jun 13, 2014)

Currently reviewing a plan for a B Occupancy use, using 2006 IFC; structure is sprinkled throughout, is multi story but for the purposes of this question, this is a ground floor situation.  There is a section of office spaces, serviced by one hallway.  The hallway is 135 feet in length from one end until you reach a point to choose between two exits.

Right off the bat, the hallway exceeds the allowed 100 feet of common path pf egress as allowed at 1014.3; exception 1.  However, does the hallway also violate 1017.3; exception 1 for a 50 foot dead end?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but does a dead end describe a situation where an area requires two means of egress (possibly due to occupant load and travel distance to an exit), however that the travel distance shall not exceed 50 feet before reaching a point where two exits can be chosen from and then continued to?  Ie, travel 50 feet, choose to go left or right, continue the remaining 250 feet to the exit?

Sounds a lot like the definition of common path of egress, which allows 100 feet of travel distance before choosing between two exits.

"COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL. That portion of exit access which the occupants are required to traverse before two separate and distinct paths of egress travel to two exits are available. Paths that merge are common paths of travel. Common paths of egress travel shall be included within the permitted travel distance."

Just a little confused, any help is most appreciated.


----------



## cda (Jun 14, 2014)

WHY IFC and not IBC?  same language normally

can  you post a simple floor plan of this?

existing or new?????


----------



## khsmith55 (Jun 14, 2014)

Does the group of offices require TWO exits (less than 5000sf)? If not, the common path of travel is moot, also check if the path of travel exceeds 300'. If the hallway could be confused with a path of egress for other parts of the building just install a "cross hallway door" recessed less than 50', or 25' if there is an A occupancy involved.


----------



## cda (Jun 14, 2014)

khsmith55 said:
			
		

> Does the group of offices require TWO exits (less than 5000sf)? If not, the common path of travel is moot, also check if the path of travel exceeds 300'. If the hallway could be confused with a path of egress for other parts of the building just install a "cross hallway door" recessed less than 50', or 25' if there is an A occupancy involved.


Would that be less than 3000 ?


----------



## firemanx (Jun 14, 2014)

I'm using the IFC as I am a fire official and am much more familiar with it, even though the IBC and IFC are fairly interlinked together.  Other than that, no reason.

I will try and get a general rendering of the matter up here on Monday.

The office spaces would need two exits due to not meeting an occupant load of 49 or less AND  a travel distance of 75 feet (fails the 75 foot travel to an exit requirement for a single exit) to the exit.  One problem I do have with the floor plan is the scale is off, I can't accurately measure the true area and linear distances.  Total travel distance to the first exit ~200ft off the top of my head, however as stated its 135ft from the offices until a choice of two exits can be made.

Thanks for the assistance, I will post the rendering on Monday.


----------



## firemanx (Jun 14, 2014)

Forgot to mention, it is an existing structure that the owners have contracted with a design professional to divide the structure into multiple tenant spaces, he is choosing to use current adopted code rather than the code that existed at the time of construction to evaluate the systems in the structure.


----------



## cda (Jun 14, 2014)

How many sq ft

New ,, existing,,, remodel???

Is there a building official involved?


----------



## firemanx (Jun 14, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> How many sq ftNew ,, existing,,, remodel???
> 
> Is there a building official involved?


Will get back to you in the sq ft on Monday with a render; remodel; yes, there is a building official however they are not reviewing this project as deeply as I.


----------



## firemanx (Jun 16, 2014)

Here's a basic idea of what I'm look at.  To clarify, this is ground floor, sprinkled, remodel, B occupancy; travel distance to first choice of two exits is 135 feet, total distance from most remote area is 160 feet, total square feet of the area is approximately 3664 square feet.  From what I gather, in the present state it exceeds the 100 feet limitation for common path of travel (1014.3).

View attachment 1067


View attachment 1067


/monthly_2014_06/Capture.JPG.6623c283d019211b7728ea1a3363341e.JPG


----------



## firemanx (Jun 16, 2014)

I hope that you guys can open that picture up in a separate window; not sure why the preview made it so small.


----------



## steveray (Jun 16, 2014)

It would be a dead end if the corridor went past the last office.....CPET def is an issue...Can't have a dead end with one exit, dead end will depend on where the 2nd door goes...


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2014)

Without seeing the rest of the floor plan

They might put a door prior to fifty foot mark in corridor and it may make it legal


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 16, 2014)

The fire code is for new construction (1001.1)

IEBC Exceptions 3 or 4 might apply to your project. Extend the last office to include the corridor and reduce the "dead end" length if that may help.

2006 IEBC

705.6 Dead-end corridors.

Dead-end corridors in any work area shall not exceed 35 feet (10 670 mm).

Exceptions:

1.	Where dead-end corridors of greater length are permitted by the International Building Code.

2.	In other than Group A and H occupancies, the maximum length of an existing dead-end corridor shall be 50 feet (15 240 mm) in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic fire alarm system installed in accordance with the International Building Code.

3.	In other than Group A and H occupancies, the maximum length of an existing dead-end corridor shall be 70 feet (21 356 mm) in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with the International Building Code.

4.	In other than Group A and H occupancies, the maximum length of an existing, newly constructed, or extended dead-end corridor shall not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm) on floors equipped with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with the International Building Code.


----------



## firemanx (Jun 16, 2014)

Dead end aside; would you gentlemen agree that there is also a common path of egress problem here (exceeded 100 feet)?  Not to beat a dead horse, just want to make sure my thinking is correct here as I'm a novice to this still.

I believe they are attempting to eliminate some existing exists, and this is the proposal which doesn't seem to quite work.


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2014)

I am thinking that just the offices shown do not need two ways out

before two separate and distinct paths of egress travel to two exits are available


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 16, 2014)

firemanx said:
			
		

> Dead end aside; would you gentlemen agree that there is also a common path of egress problem here (exceeded 100 feet)?  Not to beat a dead horse, just want to make sure my thinking is correct here as I'm a novice to this still.


Yes you still have a travel distance requirement problem

Maximum 100 ft of common path of travel measured from the most remote point in the building/space and measured along the path of travel.


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Yes you still have a travel distance requirement problemMaximum 100 ft of common path of travel measured from the most remote point in the building/space and measured along the path of travel.


how does 1015.1 play into all this??   maybe exception # 1


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 16, 2014)

There is no Exception #1

1,2 & 3 are the conditions that would require 2 exits

#2 is the charging language that would require 2 exits if the CPOT is exceeded

1015.1 Exit or exit access doorways required.

Two exits or exit access doorways from any space shall be provided where one of the following conditions exists:

1.	The occupant load of the space exceeds the values in Table 1015.1.

2.	The common path of egress travel exceeds the limitations of Section 1014.3.

3.	Where required by Sections 1015.3, 1015.4 and 1015.5.

Exception #2 allows 100 ft in a sprinkled building in lieu of the required 75 ft max if the OL is less than 30. Which a 3664 sq ft "B" occupancy should equate to 36 OL.

I do not see any way around the requirement for 2 exits from that space in that building as designed.

1014.3 Common path of egress travel.

In occupancies other than Groups H-1, H-2 and H-3, the common path of egress travel shall not exceed 75 feet (22 860 mm). In Group H-1, H-2 and H-3 occupancies, the common path of egress travel shall not exceed 25 feet (7620 mm). For common path of egress travel in Group A occupancies having fixed seating, see Section 1025.8.

Exceptions:

1.	The length of a common path of egress travel in Group B, F and S occupancies shall not be more than 100 feet (30 480 mm), provided that the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.

2.	Where a tenant space in Group B, S and U occupancies has an occupant load of not more than 30, the length of a common path of egress travel shall not be more than 100 feet (30 480 mm).


----------



## firemanx (Jun 16, 2014)

mtlogcabin:

This was my logic as well, however I wasn't presenting it was well as you.


----------



## firemanx (Jun 16, 2014)

Just for reference, and getting back on topic a bit, I found this in the commentary about dead ends:  "A dead end exists if the occupant of the corridor or passageway has only one direction to travel to reach any of the building exits"; seems to also be applicable in this situation as found here in the code:

1017.3 Dead ends.

Where more than one exit or exit access doorway is required, the exit access shall be arranged such that there are no dead ends in corridors more than 20 feet (6096 mm) in length.

Exceptions:

1.	In occupancies in Group I-3 of Occupancy Condition 2, 3 or 4 (see Section 308.4), the dead end in a corridor shall not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm).

2.	In occupancies in Groups B and F where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, the length of dead-end corridors shall not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm).

3.	A dead-end corridor shall not be limited in length where the length of the dead-end corridor is less than 2.5 times the least width of the dead-end corridor.

More than one exit from this area is required due to 1019.1, Minimum number of exits for occupant load, 1-500= 2 exits; this building does not meet the requirements of 1019.2 for buildings with one exit, specifically have less than 75 feet travel distance to the exit.

This appears to be a dead end to me according to the commentary definition, being that there is only one route to travel to get to the exit, in this case exceeding 50 feet, exception #2.


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2014)

firemanx said:
			
		

> Just for reference, and getting back on topic a bit, I found this in the commentary about dead ends:  "A dead end exists if the occupant of the corridor or passageway has only one direction to travel to reach any of the building exits"; seems to also be applicable in this situation as found here in the code:1017.3 Dead ends.
> 
> Where more than one exit or exit access doorway is required, the exit access shall be arranged such that there are no dead ends in corridors more than 20 feet (6096 mm) in length.
> 
> ...


The dead end is going from the main corridor into the four office hallway.

This can be fixed by adding a door across the corridor not more than fifty feet into the four office corridor off the main corridor


----------



## firemanx (Jun 16, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> The dead end is going from the main corridor into the four office hallway.This can be fixed by adding a door across the corridor not more than fifty feet into the four office corridor off the main corridor


I'm not challenging your response, just trying to understand better; Are you stating that if the office corridor is partitioned into two areas, separated by a door, that this circumvents the dead end restriction of the code?

It seems that the jest of the code is still the same with a door in the office corridor.  From the commentary; "While a preferred building layout would be one without dead ends, a maximum dead-end length of 20 feet is permitted and is to be measured from the extreme point in the dead end to the point where the occupants have a choice of two directions to the exits.... A dead end results whether or not egress elements open into it.  A dead end is a hazard for occupants who enter the area from adjacent spaces, travel past an exit into a dead end or enter a dead end with the mistaken assumption that an exit is directly accessible from the dead end."


----------



## firemanx (Jun 16, 2014)

For illustration purposes, from the commentary:

View attachment 1068


View attachment 1068


/monthly_2014_06/Capture2.JPG.3bb2b92afa17e257077c5c86a2698728.JPG


----------



## cda (Jun 17, 2014)

firemanx said:
			
		

> For illustration purposes, from the commentary:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct if you place a door across the short corridor that leads to the room with the B in it, you would no longer have a dead end situation. As long as the distance from the main corridor to the door meets less than is allowed

Idea is a person coming down the Main corridor as in you illustration even if they take a turn, the door is there to turn them back


----------



## Yikes (Jul 24, 2014)

You asked the difference between dead-end vs. common path of egress travel.  I'll take a stab at an example:

A dead-end could look (in plan view) like the letter "T", with an exit at the bottom of the r.  The upper ends of the T go nowhere: you have to back-up to get out.

A "common path" looks like the letter "P", with an exit at the bottom of the P.  You can be at the top of the loop of the P, and exit moving forward in either direction, without having to back up. Unfortunately, no matter which direction you go, you will still end up at the same single door.

The "common path" issue has more to do with separation of exit paths separate, and not rejoining them or getting them too close to each other.

There is a code requirement to keep exit doorways separate (1/2 to 1/3 the diagonal).  This is an additional requirement to keep the PATHWAYS to those doors separate as well.


----------

