# Dead end corridor = 20 feet



## rktect 1 (Dec 22, 2009)

I have an existing building with no sprinkler.  Rare in this village and even rarer that we are not making them put one in.  So they are going to be a restaurant.  According to IBC and commentary the dead end corridor is measured from one point to another not greater than 20 feet where a person has the option of going in two different directions to reach two different exits.

I have sketched the plan and provided measurements from the counter at the end of the corridor to a stairway leading to the basement of a single story existing building. It measures 20 feet.  It is another 4 feet to the exit doorway.  Two different paths to exits.  Another person here believes that this stairway may not meet the code requirement and are in fact in excess of the 20 foot max. rule and are at 24 feet instead.

Any thought?


----------



## Coug Dad (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

Put a door across the corridor between the stair and the restrooms.  Then the dead end will be less than 20 feet.  The door may be on hold open with smoke detection to release upon activation.


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Put a door across the corridor between the stair and the restrooms.  Then the dead end will be less than 20 feet.  The door may be on hold open with smoke detection to release upon activation.


That is in fact one of several options being looked at.  Right now I feel that it already meets code.  I have to ask you and others though.  If you put in the wall and door at the location of near the stairway, just what exactly has changed for this corridor, other than the fact that there is no longer a true corridor?  Adding the door just creates, to me, a bigger problem of security for the female washroom and does nothing for egress, fire, smoke etc.  In fact one more door just adds time to the travel to get out in case of a fire.


----------



## Coug Dad (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

The door to the stairway to the basement swings the wrong way to be an exit from the restaurant, assuming an occupant load greater than 50 persons.  Where does the stairway discharge when it hits the basement.

I agree that adding a cross corridor door does not substantially change the egress.  It could also make the holistic design worse.  However, it does help you hit compliance with a specific section of the code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

I don't think you meet the Clear Floor Area around the water closets so the restrooms should be re-designed and the dead end issue will probably go away.

If not I think Coug Dad is giving you the correct answers and best advice on the dead end problem.


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

Bathrooms meet ADA requirements so I don't understand the comment about the floor space.  As I have stated I already think this layout meets the 20 foot max dead end corridor.  Coug Dads solution does indeed make the corridor shorter and even "more" compliant, but like I said, it already meets code IMHO.  The basement staircase is a rated stairwell and the occupant load below is about 60 people.  The door from the stairway is required to swing in the direction of egress to the closest exit, which it does.

Back to the main issue.  I feel that this dead end corridor is measured from the sink to the stairway door going down to the basement, which is 20 feet.  Yes, the exit door is another 4 feet away and if you go down the stairs to the basement you will have to travel down the stairs, through the basement seating to another door, up the other stairs and out another exit to the exterior, maybe 125 feet.  But I still think it meets code.

Question is, do any of you feel that it does or does not and why?


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

Not enclosed = not a corridor.

See definition @ 1002.1

Common path of travel requirements must be met.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

ANSI 604.3.2 Overlap.

The required clearance around the water closet shall be permitted to overlap the water closet, associated grab bars, paper dispensers, sanitary napkin receptacles, coat hooks, shelves, accessible routes, clear floor space at other fixtures and the turning space. No other fixtures or obstructions shall be within the required water closet clearance.

It appears the sinks overlap into the required 60" clear space.

Brudgers. Good call


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

:shock: doh


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ANSI 604.3.2 Overlap. The required clearance around the water closet shall be permitted to overlap the water closet, associated grab bars, paper dispensers, sanitary napkin receptacles, coat hooks, shelves, accessible routes, clear floor space at other fixtures and the turning space. No other fixtures or obstructions shall be within the required water closet clearance.
> 
> It appears the sinks overlap into the required 60" clear space.


The OP said there was ADA space.

ADAAG 1994 [aka  Federal Law] allows the overlap for non-stall water closets - see figure 28.

ANSI 117.1 is merely building code, not Civil Rights law.


----------



## JBI (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

Could the 'corridor' (for lack of a better term) be widened?

_1017.3 Dead ends._

_Exceptions:_

_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._

BUT, as long as we're now re-examining the toilet room layouts... reconfiguration that includes reducing the length of the 'corridor' is a reasonable option... and may actually resolve any issues regarding ANSI vs ADAAG as well...  :roll:


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ANSI 604.3.2 Overlap. The required clearance around the water closet shall be permitted to overlap the water closet, associated grab bars, paper dispensers, sanitary napkin receptacles, coat hooks, shelves, accessible routes, clear floor space at other fixtures and the turning space. No other fixtures or obstructions shall be within the required water closet clearance.
> 
> It appears the sinks overlap into the required 60" clear space.


Sorry, I think I should have been more clear.  See if this helps me out.  In Illinois we actually enforce the 1997 Illinois Accessablity Code.  In this code on page 141, fig 28 it clearly graphically represents this specific bathroom layout which shows the lav and water closet within a space of 48"x66".  The clear floor space for the bathroom drawn above is around 66"x78".  Page 55, B) Water Closets, i) Clear Floor Space.  "Clear floor space for water closets not in stalls shall comply with illustration B Fig 28. Clear floor space may be arranged to allow either a left handed or right handed approach."  Fig 28 shows three configurations, straight on, right and left handed.  Two with lavs inside the 48"x66" dimensions provided.  I do believe that for the past 12 years they have wanted to change this requirement and at some point in the next 12 years may even produce a new document to that effect.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Could the 'corridor' (for lack of a better term) be widened?


A better term is not lacking.

The term is "unenclosed exit access."

Calling it "a corridor" merely creates the confusion which leads one to imagine dead-ends where none exist.


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

I do have a new question though.  After reading the definition for corridor I got to looking up the commentary.  At 1017.3 there is a diagram(s) clearly showing a corridor which is not enclosed at 20 feet in length.  Any thoughts?  Please take a look.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I think I should have been more clear.  See if this helps me out.  In Illinois we actually enforce the 1997 Illinois Accessablity Code.  In this code on page 141, fig 28 it clearly graphically represents this specific bathroom layout which shows the lav and water closet within a space of 48"x66".  The clear floor space for the bathroom drawn above is around 66"x78".  Page 55, B) Water Closets, i) Clear Floor Space.  "Clear floor space for water closets not in stalls shall comply with illustration B Fig 28. Clear floor space may be arranged to allow either a left handed or right handed approach."  Fig 28 shows three configurations, straight on, right and left handed.  Two with lavs inside the 48"x66" dimensions provided.  I do believe that for the past 12 years they have wanted to change this requirement and at some point in the next 12 years may even produce a new document to that effect.


It would be better if the adopted a DOJ certified code and brought their requirements in line with ADA.


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> rktect 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I think I should have been more clear.  See if this helps me out.  In Illinois we actually enforce the 1997 Illinois Accessablity Code.  In this code on page 141, fig 28 it clearly graphically represents this specific bathroom layout which shows the lav and water closet within a space of 48"x66".  The clear floor space for the bathroom drawn above is around 66"x78".  Page 55, B) Water Closets, i) Clear Floor Space.  "Clear floor space for water closets not in stalls shall comply with illustration B Fig 28. Clear floor space may be arranged to allow either a left handed or right handed approach."  Fig 28 shows three configurations, straight on, right and left handed.  Two with lavs inside the 48"x66" dimensions provided.  I do believe that for the past 12 years they have wanted to change this requirement and at some point in the next 12 years may even produce a new document to that effect.


It would be better if the adopted a DOJ certified code and brought their requirements in line with ADA.

I think the problem lies in the idea that the Illinois Accessibility Code and the enforcement of related codes pre-dates ADA.  That is what I was told at a class anyways. (Rumor warning) In other words I think Illinois believes they might have a leg up on this issue.  I don't really know, I just try to enforce the code as best I can and I do agree with your statement.


----------



## Coug Dad (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

I believe the corridor dead end provisions apply.  Either 20 feet or 2.5 times the width.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> I do have a new question though.  After reading the definition for corridor I got to looking up the commentary.  At 1017.3 there is a diagram(s) clearly showing a corridor which is not enclosed at 20 feet in length.  Any thoughts?  Please take a look.


The desire to call high aspect ratio unenclosed exit accesses "corridors" extends even to experienced code officials and design professionals.

If it was a corridor, how would you ever meet 1017.4?

And why would it need to be separated from the toilet rooms but not the kitchen?


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> I think the problem lies in the idea that the Illinois Accessibility Code and the enforcement of related codes pre-dates ADA.  That is what I was told at a class anyways. (Rumor warning) In other words I think Illinois believes they might have a leg up on this issue.  I don't really know, I just try to enforce the code as best I can and I do agree with your statement.


As I recall, ADAAG [1994] is similar to A117.1 [1986] for this requirement...but it's been a few years since I had to use the 1986 booklet.

What would really be handy is if A117.1 would just get itself in line with Federal Law.


----------



## JBI (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

Maybe the Feds should have simply adopted the already existing A117.1.

Code Officials are only legally authorized to enforce the adopted codes. Unless your jurisdiction has adopted ADAAG, it is not yours to enforce.

DPRs on the other hand MUST design in compliance with BOTH. That's the fun part.

Special request for the Holidays... Can we NOT rehash the same old arguments about ADAAG vs ANSI. Everyone here knows everyone elses position on the subject, so having the same old cyclical arguements at this 'festive' time of year hardly makes sense.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

From the looks of the ADAAG it is either a front transfer, a diagional transfer or a side transfer design. Logically a side transfer also allows the use of the front or diagional transfers.

I think ADAAG is behind on this one when you don't provide a wheelchair user the different transfer options and leave it up to the designer to decide. JMHO

I have to side with brudgers if it is not enclosed it is not a corridor therefore a dead end does not exist


----------



## Coug Dad (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

brudgers, if it is not a corridor, then is its length limited only by a 75 foot common path of travel from the remote point in the restroom?


----------



## vegas paul (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

brudgers - are you saying that an "enclosed exit access component" is the same as an "exit enclosure"?  I'm not sure that there is agreement that the "enclosed" nature of a corridor (required per the definition) makes it an enclosure...   I always presumed it simply meant that it had defined walls and ceiling, thus enclosing it, vs. a pathway through cubicles, etc.

Otherwise, the sketch provided indicates that it is an exit access component (clearly), and it appears enclosed (but not an enclosure!).  Comments?


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Special request for the Holidays... Can we NOT rehash the same old arguments about ADAAG vs ANSI. Everyone here knows everyone elses position on the subject, so having the same old cyclical arguements at this 'festive' time of year hardly makes sense.


You celebrate your holidays when and how you want.

I'll celebrate mine with similar considerations.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> brudgers, if it is not a corridor, then is its length limited only by a 75 foot common path of travel from the remote point in the restroom?


It would be limited by that regardless of if it's a corridor or not.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				vegas paul said:
			
		

> brudgers - are you saying that an "enclosed exit access component" is the same as an "exit enclosure"?  I'm not sure that there is agreement that the "enclosed" nature of a corridor (required per the definition) makes it an enclosure...   I always presumed it simply meant that it had defined walls and ceiling, thus enclosing it, vs. a pathway through cubicles, etc.Otherwise, the sketch provided indicates that it is an exit access component (clearly), and it appears enclosed (but not an enclosure!).  Comments?


An exit enclosure is not the same thing as an exit access...nor a corridor.

A corridor is an enclosed horizontal *exit access* component.

An exit enclosure is part of a horizontal or vertical *exit*.

If it's open at one end, it's not enclosed and not a corridor...which of course is a good thing since it would be hard to meet the ventilation requirements for a corridor with one end open.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> John Drobysh said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Special request for the Holidays... Can we NOT rehash the same old arguments about ADAAG vs ANSI. Everyone here knows everyone elses position on the subject, so having the same old cyclical arguements at this 'festive' time of year hardly makes sense.


You celebrate your holidays when and how you want.

I'll celebrate mine with similar considerations.

How 'bout we argue as to whether a chimney is a legitimate means of egress?  Ho-ho-ho...


----------



## JBI (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

Actually Yikes, there is no requirement to _*use*_ a legitimate MOE, only to *provide* them...  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## cda (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

rktect 1

go with your original thought "no problem" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



			
				Yikes said:
			
		

> How 'bout we argue as to whether a chimney is a legitimate means of egress?  Ho-ho-ho...


Needs an elevator.


----------



## JBI (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

brudgers - "Needs an elevator." Got a code section for that?


----------



## jar546 (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

*1018.2.4 Chimney Egress*.

An exterior exit doors shall be required for all

chimneys utilized for the purpose of delivering

presents to children.  Kris Kringel shalll designate

the chimney in writing for occupancies with

more than one chimney.

*Exception:*

Chimneys that are capped


----------



## jar546 (Dec 27, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

The issue in my opinion is non-existent since we are not looking at a corridor.  The commentary has been known to be wrong.

As far as the ADA is concerned.  You will notice that the ADAAG and ANSI 117.1 is slowly coming together each new cycle.  Eventually they will be the same.

The vertical grab bar in the ANSI 117.1 was lobbied by AARP.  It does not exist in the ADAAG.  You will eventually see it in there too.

I believe one of the changes coming down the road is the elimination of the projection on handrails at the top and bottom.  It is causing too many problems as we already know.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 27, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

"According to IBC and commentary the dead end corridor is measured from one point to another not greater than 20 feet where a person has the option of going in two different directions to reach two different exits."

Next problem?

Uncle Bob


----------



## jar546 (Dec 27, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

*CORRIDOR.* An *enclosed* exit access component that defines

and provides a path of egress travel to an exit.

Show me where it is ENCLOSED


----------



## Plans Approver (Dec 28, 2009)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

OK, I will, at the risk of making a backside of my self, assume that the following 2 interpretations still exist in the 2006 book of interpretations (someone borrowed mine last week and believes it was a gift - it wasn't!). So somebody here can verify if they are still there.

From the 2000 & 2003 interp books:



> Q: Does Section 1016 [1017 in 2006] require exit access corridors to be provided in buildings?A: No. Section 1016 [1017 in 2006] only provides requirements for exit access corridors whenever they are provided in a building. The International Building Code requires access to exits for every building, which can be accomplished by open spaces, aisles or corridors. A corridor is created when the path of travel to an exit is confined, and communication with and observation of adjacent floor areas are restricted.


and, though fire-rated, this is similar



> Q: A floor plan, of which a portion is an open plan without corridors and an adjacent portion that is compartmented, contains a corridor that leads to the open plan area. Assuming the corridor enclosure is required to be fire-resistance rated, is it the intent of the code to require that an opening protective be installed at the point where the corridor enters the open area?A: No. The relatively open areas adjacent to the corridor can be considered corridor extensions with rated walls and opening protectives enclosing both the narrow and wide portions of the corridor in a continuous fashion


and from the 2006 commentary for definition of a corridor:



> Corridors have walls that extend from the floor to at least the ceiling. They need not extend above the ceiling or have doors in their openings unless a fire-resistance rating is required (see Section 1017). The enclosed character of the corridor restricts the sensory perception of the user. A fire located on the other side of the corridor wall, for example, may not be as readily seen, heard or smelled by the occupants traveling through the egress corridor.


and more from the 2006 commentary for dead ends:



> 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.


I know that all this crap I quoted is not code, but, food for thought in making a judgment.

My judgment is that it is a corridor, no rating as the corridor serves an occupant load less than 30 (coming from the toilet rooms), door is not required at the end of the corridor, not a dead end because it starts at the toilet room wall - less than 20' long.

Now as far as that stair is concerned, I might look at 1019.3 and 1020.1 exception 8 or apply the last sentence in 3406.1.


----------



## duckbill (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet

If this area is NOT a corridor, then the minimum width requirements of IBC Section 1017.2 would not be applicable and the only governing requirements would be Table 1005.1 (Egress width per occupant served).  If this is not a corridor, then an occupant load of 50 in this occupancy would only require this area to be 10" wide.


----------



## Plans Approver (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: Dead end corridor = 20 feet



> If this is not a corridor, then an occupant load of 50 in this occupancy would only require this area to be 10" wide.


Except that:

ICC/ANSI A117.1 and ADAAG would require a minimum width of 36" and because of 90 degree turns into doorways 42" wide.


----------

