# Corridor continuity



## iBuild (Apr 12, 2012)

I am working on an existing assisted living community where the owners desire to open completely 2 existing units to the egress corridor and make it an activity area/ dining room.

The building is 12-story Type 3 construction and fully sprinklered. This modification would happen on the 4th floor. The village has adopted the IBC 2006

I see that section 1017.5 is pretty straightforward in that it does not allow anything other than lobbies/reception areas to be open to corridors.

I am confused because I have worked in many other assisted living communities, primarily 1 and 2-story Type 5 construction, which have all kinds of dining rooms, public living rooms, etc. open to the corridors.

My question: Are there any circumstances/ exceptions in the code that would allow me to open areas to the corridor in existing assisted living (I-1) occupancy?

Thank you all very much!


----------



## Coug Dad (Apr 12, 2012)

Welcome to the board.

The IBC only requires that the corridor only connect to one of the required exit stair enclosures.  The second exit can be accessed through the day room if a door is provided from the day room to the corridor.  The door separating the day room, dining room or other space can be on hold open.  The commentary gives good examples.


----------



## RLGA (Apr 12, 2012)

How did you get a 12-story Type III building?


----------



## steveray (Apr 12, 2012)

Must've been an old code........ 



			
				RLGA said:
			
		

> How did you get a 12-story Type III building?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 12, 2012)

around these here parts, we don't have 12 story buildings in our villages.


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 12, 2012)

Welcome to the Building Codes Forum!


----------



## cda (Apr 12, 2012)

is this also governed by NFPA 101???


----------



## imhotep (Apr 12, 2012)

iBuild said:
			
		

> I am working on an existing assisted living community where the owners desire to open completely 2 existing units to the egress corridor and make it an activity area/ dining room.The building is 12-story Type 3 construction and fully sprinklered. This modification would happen on the 4th floor. The village has adopted the IBC 2006
> 
> I see that section 1017.5 is pretty straightforward in that it does not allow anything other than lobbies/reception areas to be open to corridors.
> 
> ...


Would an open area adjacent to a corridor and constructed as a corridor be considered an intervening room?  If it was less than 20' deep is it an issue?


----------



## cda (Apr 12, 2012)

"""""an activity area/ dining room.""""

I think the concept is fine, but th use is not equal to a foyer, lobby, or reception area.


----------



## iBuild (Apr 13, 2012)

Thank you for your comments.- Coug DadI looked up the commentaries for IBC 2003 (the only one I was able to find) but could not see the examples you are referring to. Where should I look?In my case there won't be another exit through the day room. -RLGA, steveray, RapioI guess the building is not a type 3, I apologize. Concrete frame with brick/block exterior infill. Still learning these things. It is in the village of Oak Park, IL.-cdaNFPA 101 is part of the village code. -imhotepI second the question. If the room is less than 20' (which it is not) can the space be used for other-than-egress purposes?Here is the building I am working with:
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1293

	

		
			
		

		
	
 The idea is to open 412 to the corridorHere is a fairly recently constructed assisted living building that has the openings:
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1294

	

		
			
		

		
	
How are they able to do it in Building 2?Thank you!

View attachment 559


View attachment 560


View attachment 559


View attachment 560


/monthly_2012_04/572953c3b2787_Building1.jpg.399d9643868ff10e31df99389610d448.jpg

/monthly_2012_04/572953c3b5cd9_Building2.jpg.9eaec0cf82e5afdf99802bc3d83df19a.jpg


----------



## imhotep (Apr 13, 2012)

iBuild said:
			
		

> Thank you for your comments.- Coug Dad
> 
> I looked up the commentaries for IBC 2003 (the only one I was able to find) but could not see the examples you are referring to. Where should I look?
> 
> ...


I'll come back to what I consider the operative provision: "...interrupted by intervening rooms."  An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than a means of egress, but the same provision is not found under corridors.  If the rec area is bounded by fire partitions and the depth is less than 2.5 times the least width then it meets the dead end exception and is allowed.  One would have to address the mechanical requirements.


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 13, 2012)

In the IEBC in other than A or H occupancies W/sprinkler a new dead end coridor can be 50'. IEBC 705.6 ex #4


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 13, 2012)

In a thread not to many days ago I brought up the question of a not-a-corridor. If travel distance requirements are met to the vertical exit enclosures then why does the interveening space have to be called a corridor?


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

My answer would be no

Mainly because of what they are trying to use the room for

As for the other building can't say why, maybe code was not enforced??


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

Why can't they gut the room and leave the walls and door???


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 13, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Why can't they gut the room and leave the walls and door???


Why should they if it is an interveening room not a corridor.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> My answer would be noMainly because of what they are trying to use the room for
> 
> As for the other building can't say why, maybe code was not enforced??


Again Why call it a corridor if they meet travel distances.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 13, 2012)

imhotep said:
			
		

> Last edited by imhotep; 2 Hours Ago at 14:25. Reason: 'Cause I can


very nice.  Hospitals Adult Care Centers and Dormitories do this all the time, and I do not see this as an exit passageway or a dead end corridor.  As long as they are not encroaching on the required egress widths, I have no problem.  Maybe delineating the space with a change in ceiling & floor materials, or even a half wall and bulk-head would help.


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

Because it is a corridor

Travel distance has nothing to do with corridor continuity


----------



## RLGA (Apr 13, 2012)

My thinking is along the same line as Papio's. The code says that corridors can't be "interrupted," so if the space is off to the side so that the corridor path is consistent from one end to the other (i.e. not interrupted) and the space is constructed as for corridors, then I would be okay with it.


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 13, 2012)

> My thinking is along the same line as Papio's. The code says that corridors can't be "interrupted,"so if the space is off to the side so that the corridor path is consistent from one end to the other
> 
> ( i.e. not interrupted) and the space is constructed as for corridors, then I would be okay with it.


What some on here may be concerned about is the integrity of the existing corridor; as well

as, a different Occupancy Group use associated with a rated corridor and the ability to

egress from the interior spaces. Suppose a fire event originates in this "new" activities

/ dining area. Now the rest of the corridor is compromised! ..or am I missing something?

Also, along the same lines as "cda", why couldn't the two rooms be gutted and leave the

existing corridor walls & doors in place?


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

OP lists it as an I-1

so one hour corridor required

as stated above::

"""""an activity area/ dining room.""""

I think the concept is fine, but the use is not equal to a """""""""""""foyer, lobby, or reception area.""""""""""""""""

not sure what nfpa 101, which they may also have to meet says


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

so everyone agrees with corridor continuity

and that is has to be maintained till you get out of the building

just down to what can be allowed to be open to this exit system

so for those that would aloow the dining room in a rated corridor, would you allow it if it was in the same stairwell eclousure that the corridor dumps into, if it was out of the exit width????  same exiting system as you have in the corridor on the floor where you would allow trhe dining room open ot the rated corridor


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 13, 2012)

If the layout for the building were a bit different and the dining room was a more traditional space such as a big hall with sleeping rooms all around a central eating area then no one would even try to call it a corridor. You would all simply look for CPOT and travel distances and leave it at that.

I may be crazy but if I can (IBC 1014.3) travel 75' through 1, 2, or more spaces and then find more than one direction to travel to an exit enclosure, and if I do all of this within (IBC T1016.1) the 200' allowed travel distance for exit access; then why do I have to make a space comply with the definition of a corridor if I am allowed to travel through (IBC 1014.2) an intervening space?

If the designer calls the whole open area between all the dwelling areas a dining room, not a corridor but a dining room, and then provides the proper smoke protection for the area in front of the elevator, who are we as reviewers to say he has to call it a corridor and meet the restrictions of a corridor. The doors to the rooms will need to be rated because each dwelling unit is required to be separated, but other than that and smoke protection there is no reason the designer cannot call the whole area what he wants.


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 13, 2012)

> If the designer calls the whole open area between all the dwellingareas a dining room, not a corridor but a dining room, and then provides the
> 
> proper smoke protection for the area in front of the elevator, who are we
> 
> ...


The existing floor plan has the corridor listed and wants to change the

use of the two rooms off to one side, not change the existing corridor, but

rather, IMO, ..add to it (i.e - compromise the entire corridor).

Again, just asking, but why can't the designer also just leave the

corridor intact and gut the two rooms. Why open up the rooms to the

corridor?

"gb", as code officials, it is, IMO, prudent to ask such questions along

the "most restrictive" lines.   Peoples lives and other resources are

involved.

iBuild,

FWIW, because it has been done in other buildings / floors does

not make it code compliant in this application.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 13, 2012)

It is an I-1 occupancy.  The occupants are capable of responding to an emergency without physical assistance from staff.  The occupants (17 rooms once the dining area is installed) will most likely be in attendance at the dining area, if not still in their rooms.  The added life-safety risk associated with this type of incidental use is nominal...it doesn't even classify as an assembly room requiring two exits.

If it had seating for 20 in this area and it was called a lobby, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If it also had some tables, and the occupants played bingo, cards, or watched television every evening with their guests/family members we wouldn't be having this conversation.

However, push those chairs and tables together, because we want to eat food in this area, and that gastrointestinal activity, which is not by the letter of the code listed in the 1017.5 exception, promotes a greater fire-hazard than a lobby or foyer....we are having this conversation.


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 13, 2012)

Changing the area from a corridor to an intervening space is not a code violation. The designer only has to meet the minimum requirements of the code not exceed the requirements. 1014.2 allows egress from a room or space so long as the room or 'area' is accessory to the room or space that you are egressing from, and so long as you meet the other requirements listed: not a kitchen, not storage, not hazardous... and meet travel distances.

A dining room (room) with hallways (areas) leading to it from dwelling units is with out a doubt accessory to the dwelling units.


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Changing the area from a corridor to an intervening space is not a code violation. The designer only has to meet the minimum requirements of the code not exceed the requirements. 1014.2 allows egress from a room or space so long as the room or 'area' is accessory to the room or space that you are egressing from, and so long as you meet the other requirements listed: not a kitchen, not storage, not hazardous... and meet travel distances.A dining room (room) with hallways (areas) leading to it from dwelling units is with out a doubt accessory to the dwelling units.


corridor continuity trumps everything else,

        basically if the ahj wants to stamp it and are able to sleep at night, that that is thier call.


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 13, 2012)

Respectfully offered,

I have visited Assisted Living facilities before, and not all are able

to respond to an emergency in a rapid ("urgent") manner without

assistance. Some are even wheelchair bound, or carrying around

various medical apparatus, and some still are simply mentally

challenged because of old age or other medical conditions, so

the ("straight forward" designation ) of an I-1 type facility is not

all encompassing regarding response capabilities and building design.

In Section 1017.5, the Exceptions listed for Foyers, lobbies &

reception rooms tend (IMO) to be a higher state of response

capability than a Dining area, where sitting down to eat, and

engaged conversation, involves a "more relaxed state". Am I

splitting hairs here, ..you betcha! Senior citizens (some, but not

all) in these type facilities value greatly their time to sit and talk

and eat with others, moreso than most able bodied individuals.

It *IS* a time for relaxation and fellowshipping with others.

It is because of the proposed "dining" activities that I am concerned.

Any dining table & chairs, ..the (somewhat) more relaxed state of

mind of the tenants, ..the physical, mental & medical challenges

that are most definitely at play, all go in to the mix of making a

(facility) design change like this.

I would respectfully decline the design as offered and request that

the corridor remain intact. I am "all for" having each tenant to be

able to move freely about the facility, ..to have an "openness" (<- sp ?? )

to their home, ..to be able to "go & come" and visit other residents in

a safe & comfortable manner, as they choose, but to design a room /

space as a "Dining" area open to a rated corridor, IMO, would not be

"the most restrictive" application.

Also, as somewhat of an aside, I would encourage all of you to go

and visit an Assisted Living facility, ..anywhere! Some are better run

and taken care of than others. Some have better staffing than others.

And still others, are in better condition than others. The condition,

staffing and treatment of residents in some is appalling, ..abusive,

..disrespectful and in others, ...downright criminal!

I vote "no!" Leave the corridor intact!



For some more info, ask some of the more experienced Fire Code

Officials about that "being able to sleep at night", regarding some

of the conditions in these type facilities. IMO, this is not something

that I could summarily approve.

As long as I am on my soapbox, ..I would encourage Plans Examiners

and other code officials to not take this proposed design change

lightly. Kinda like the ADA requirements.. Senior citizens have

enough challenges as it is. To me, it is my responsibility to look

at all aspects of these type projects, rather than just the building

components themselves. It is, IMO, much more than just about

monetary costs of the building.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 13, 2012)

A corridor is enclosed and provides a distinct path for egress. When you allow other activities within the corridor then the distinct egress path is lost. Although the dining or living areas may be allowed by the code as an intervening room within a corridor (not totally convinced) I   agree there should be a distinct path delineated through the intervening rooms, preferably a wall or guard.


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 13, 2012)

I found it much harder to except the not a stair for just one occupant, and now that I find myself considering a not a corridor as even remotely possible for hundreds is beyond my limited ability to comprehend.

The better part of me is always more restrictive, and would love to take a no way stance. I just don’t see the line in the sand that I saw with stairways. Here the code allows you to travel 200’ before you must hit exit access, there is no reason to think that the code says the moment you leave your room you have to treat that door as that exit access. The commentary is clear when it says you can enter a hall then re-enter an intervening space, then another hall, as many times as possible so long as you meet the 200’ before finding an exit enclosure that leads directly to the exit discharge. Now the corridor on the bottom floor would need to have continuity because it is a part of the exit. The corridor/dining room on the fourth floor is simply a part of the path of egress to an exit.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 13, 2012)

Thanks GT for your response.  I am respectfully holding with my position that the dining area integrated into the corridor does not diminish the corridor's fire-rated continuity.

Given cda and globe trekkers position, the OP should also consider a (e.g., mckeon) wand type of door/wall system if they would like to keep the open-ness between the corridor and dining area.  This should satisfy the continuity issue and present the same or similar design result.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 13, 2012)

A corridor, rated or not is part of the exit access and is part of the exit access travel distance

A corridor is never part of an exit

see the definitions


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 13, 2012)

Papio,

Do you have some pictures or links to this "wand" type door / wall system?

Thanks!


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 13, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Papio,Do you have some pictures or links to this "wand" type door / wall system?
> 
> Thanks!


www.McKeonDoor.com

a couple of options:

1) vertical acting with complying swing egress door

2) side acting accordian with power-assisted egress (suggested for most case studies involving corridor seperation in healthcare).

3) side acting accordian with complying swing egress dooor and vertical acting with comply swing egress door combination

can be used for horizontal exits and exit passageways.


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 13, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> A corridor, rated or not is part of the exit access and is part of the exit access travel distanceA corridor is never part of an exit
> 
> see the definitions


Ah I agree with you about the definition of exit access my bad I met to say EXIT. 1016.1 The 200' of travel distance is not always required to be protected until you hit a vertical exit enclosure, an exit passageway (a corridor can be a part of an exit passageway but may not be), a horizontal exit, an exterior exit stairway or ramp.


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Papio,Do you have some pictures or links to this "wand" type door / wall system?
> 
> Thanks!


WON;

http://www.wondoor.com/


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

GLobe;;;

"""In Section 1017.5, the Exceptions listed for Foyers, lobbies &

reception rooms tend (IMO) to be a higher state of response"""

Not sure if that is it, but more of the

FUEL LOAD

Built a pretty corridor than fill it with combustibles, why built it in the first place???


----------



## imhotep (Apr 13, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> so everyone agrees with corridor continuityand that is has to be maintained till you get out of the building
> 
> just down to what can be allowed to be open to this exit system
> 
> so for those that would aloow the dining room in a rated corridor, would you allow it if it was in the same stairwell eclousure that the corridor dumps into, if it was out of the exit width????  same exiting system as you have in the corridor on the floor where you would allow trhe dining room open ot the rated corridor


No.  Not the same thing.  1022.1 "An exit enclosure shall not be used for any purpose other than means of egress. "


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

Does a Corridor meet the definition of exit enclosure :::

EXIT ENCLOSURE. An exit component that is separated from other interior spaces of a building or structure by fire-resistance-rated construction and opening protectives, and provides for a protected path of egress travel in a vertical or horizontal direction to the exit discharge or the public way.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 13, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Does a Corridor meet the definition of exit enclosure :::EXIT ENCLOSURE. An exit component that is separated from other interior spaces of a building or structure by fire-resistance-rated construction and opening protectives, and provides for a protected path of egress travel in a vertical or horizontal direction to the exit discharge or the public way.


Don't have the codes at home

I believe the definition of an exit does not include corridors in the listed components so No it is not part of an exit enclosure


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2012)

Ask and he shall receive ;;;

Still say will be up to the ahj making the decision to approve this set up

EXIT. That portion of a means of egress system which is separated from other interior spaces of a building or structure by fire-resistance-rated construction and opening protectives as required to provide a protected path of egress travel between the exit access and the exit discharge. Exits include exterior exit doors at ground level, exit enclosures, exit passageways, exterior exit stairs, exterior exit ramps and horizontal exits.

And;;;;

CORRIDOR. An enclosed exit access component that defines and provides a path of egress travel to an exit.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 15, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Not sure if that is it, but more of the
> 
> FUEL LOAD
> 
> Built a pretty corridor than fill it with combustibles, why built it in the first place???


I am not disagreeing that there is merit to your position, however a corridor is a compenent of an exit access system, and while we have debated the merits of Section 1017, and are for the most part in agreement on the letter of the code, perhaps we should discuss the differences between an Exit Access Component (e.g. aisles, aisle accessways, corridors) and an Exit Component (e.g. exit enclosures, exit passageways, etc.).  The latter, which  makes no allowances, or exception, for any other activity/use within that component other than egress, while the former makes specific allowances for intervening spaces.

Where that line of specificity is drawn is what we are not agreeing on.  The semantics are simple, call it a dining room and deny it, call it a lobby and approve it.  The use of that lobby is more complicated.  We can use it to sit in, read, dose off between visiting hours, drink coffee, talk, watch television, etc., but we can not eat a full meal there.

In this case, we do not agree that dining tables and chairs are an increased fire load over lounge chairs, couches and end tables typically found in a hospital corridor system/lobby?  I simply don't see the disparity.  Do you allow the nurse/reception stations to be in the corridor with built-in cabinetry, hundreds of paper files, and supplies?  Are those not an equal if not greater fuel load in a corridor too?


----------



## cda (Apr 15, 2012)

And you forgot a nurse standing there 24 hours a day on fire watch


----------

