# Common path of travel



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

I have a small A-2 restaurant with fixed seating and take out with about 40 occupants, considered a B tenant finish out in an old existing building, no sprinklers.  By occupant load it requires one exit.  By common path of egress travel I am uncertain.

From the most remote point in a storage area to an exit is 90 feet which is over the max common path by 15 feet.  *BUT*, on the wall to this exit is another exit at the far end which if the person went to would also be 90 feet.  *BUT/SO*, the common path of egress travel would then, because two exits are present, only be about 67 feet.  This would be the point at which a person in the back room was able to come to the front counter area and decide which of the two exits to go to travel the remainder 23 feet.  *BUT*, this second exit can't be considered a part of the required exits because of the remoteness.  It is located about 32 feet from the other exit, not in an oppsite direction and is required to be 1/2 the distance of 75 feet diagonal of the space, right?

So basically, they have to provide a required exit somewhere else, correct?  I feel like this is one of those judgement call times.

It's the word "required" in the definition of "common path of egress travel" I think is the issue.


----------



## vegas paul (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Nope... the separation of exits is only when two or more are REQUIRED... you only require one exit based on occupancy load and CPET.  When the occupant reaches a point where he/she has a choice of two or more exit paths, then CPET meaurement ends, so it sounds like you are ok.

However, please ensure that neither of the exits that you are using to comply with CPET passes through kitchens or storage rooms (unless you are exiting from those spaces) per IBC 1014.2.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

If I understand you correctly you can not meet the CPOT with one exit therefore two are required With that said depending on the layout and how you are measuring the area served will be the key in determining what the required seperation distance length is.

1015.2.1 Two exits or exit access doorways.

Where two exits or exit access doorways are required from any portion of the exit access, the exit doors or exit access doorways shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building *or area to be served *measured in a straight line between exit doors or exit access doorways


----------



## JBI (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

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.

rk - I'm going with vegas paul on this one. The use of the word 'required' in the definition is modifying the occupants movement, not the exit doors. IMO, you are still only required to have one door, and CPET ends when there is a choice - in this case at the service counter. As long as the second 'exit' meets the requirements for an 'exit', remoteness in this case is moot as it is not a 'required exit'.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

I agree with mtlogcabin. Two exits are required because of cpet. The second exit does not meet the requirements for an exit.


----------



## vegas paul (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Boy, I'm getting confused now!  After reading mtlogcabin's explanation, I can see the vailidity in that as well.  This appears to be a "chicken or the egg" issue.  Do you look at CPET first, (and determine that it is compliant) and then decide that only one exit is required (even though they have two), or do you look at 1015 first and decide that CPET dictates the need for two required exits, and then apply 1015.2.1 (exit separation) to that decision???

2009 code, although reworded considerably in these sections, does not clear it up at all.

This looks like it oculd be argued either way, and probably can't be defended very well if the designer takes issue...

Another option is to measure the diagonal for the "area" served rather than the whole restaurant/building.  1015.2.1 has this ambiguous wording in it which allows for additional confusion.  What is the area served?


----------



## High Desert (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

I agree with kilitact and mtlogcabin. Once you fail to meet CPET, then two exits are definitely required and the provisions for two exits have to be adhered to, just like any other provision of the code requiring two exits.


----------



## vegas paul (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

High Desert - Just food for thought, I'm (admitedly, see above) still confused on this issue and not disagreeing with you, however consider this...  What if you already HAVE two exits, and therefore you HAVEN'T failed to meet CPET?  Now, are the two exits required to meet the separation requirements (using this logic, the two exits AREN''t required, since you meet CPET!).


----------



## JBI (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

mtlog & kil - I'm going to jump over the fence on this one, but not because of your points. For one thing (kil) we don't know if the second door meets the reqs for an 'exit' as there is not enough information about that door, so to say it doesn't is premature at best. We've all been looking at CPET. CPET isn't the problem as it is only +/-67' where 75' is permitted. HOWEVER...

1019.2 Buildings with one exit.

Only one exit shall be required in buildings as described below:

1.   Buildings described in Table 1019.2, provided that the building has not more than one level below the first story above grade plane.

2.   Buildings of Group R-3 occupancy.

3.   Single-level buildings with the occupied space at the level of exit discharge provided that the story or space complies with Section 1015.1 as a space with one means of egress.

TABLE 1019.2 BUILDINGS WITH ONE EXIT

OCCUPANCY

 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDING ABOVE GRADE PLANE

 MAXIMUM OCCUPANTS

(OR DWELLING UNITS) PER FLOOR AND

TRAVEL DISTANCE

A, Bd, Ee, F, M, U

 1 Story

 49 occupants and 75 feet travel distance

CPET is not the problem, travel distance is. The only ways out would be to reduce travel distance or add sprinklers. I'm thinking 'reduce travel distance' will be the choice... JMHO


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel



			
				vegas paul said:
			
		

> High Desert - Just food for thought, I'm (admitedly, see above) still confused on this issue and not disagreeing with you, however consider this...  What if you already HAVE two exits, and therefore you HAVEN'T failed to meet CPET?  Now, are the two exits required to meet the separation requirements (using this logic, the two exits AREN''t required, since you meet CPET!).


That is exactly where I am at with this.

I just added a bad sketch of the plan on the next post.


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Crappy image I drew up.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

John

1019.2 item 3 you have to meet 1015.1

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.

Would you allow them to remove an exit door?

No!

Why not?

Because without the second exit the CPOT is 90 ft.

2nd exit is required.

What's the seperation distance required between the 2 required exits?

1/2 the distance of the area served.

How you measure this distance is the question that I believe is unresolved because of the term "area served".


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

mtlogcabin, I think I am going with the distance of the area served over the distance of the entire space.  Unless someone can explain to me why it would be otherwise.

I'm torn though.  How does using the distance of the area served help out the guy standing in the storage space when a fire breaks out?  Wouldn't the area served then require it to include the storage space as well?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

You should measure your travel distance at right angles not diagonaly across a room.

The area served in my opinion would be the dining area so the doors should be seperated 1/2 the diagonale distance of that room measured acroos the longest distance.


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind.  Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one.  Two places exist for this exit.  The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to.  (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is.  Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner?  What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area?  None, would be my answer.  Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.

But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area.  What about the 20 foot dead end issue?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Remember it is CPOT from the storage area that is driving the 2nd exit. So don't over complicate this. You could simply add a door in the kitchen area opposite the small rooms between the storage and kitchen.


----------



## Big Mac (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

OK, I’m going to try this again.  The internet apparently ate my first response.

1st)	One needs to assess the common path of travel from the most remote part of the structure, in this case the storage room, to a point where a person has a choice of two code compliant exits.  If that distance is less than 75’, done deal.

If on the other hand the distance properly measured exceeds 75’ or if either exit is not code compliant, there are issues that need to be resolved.

2nd)	As has been alluded to the common path of travel distance needs to be measured at 90o angles.  It is not to be assumed that a person can cut across a room, particularly in a storage area.

3rd)	Anytime two exits are required, for whatever reason, they must meet the separation requirements established by the code.  If that means that one of those exits needs to be placed at the rear of the tenant space, then a wall separating the path of exit travel from the storage room should be provided.


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Remember it is CPOT from the storage area that is driving the 2nd exit. So don't over complicate this. You could simply add a door in the kitchen area opposite the small rooms between the storage and kitchen.


Oops.  I should have written down that area is another tenant space from door #2 all the way back.  The opposite wall and left side wall is to the exterior as is the far far right hand side wall.  The leftover space shown at bottom right corner (shown empty) is another tenant space.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

The travel distance for B, can be 75 ft, if 49 occupants, if more than 49 occupants two exits are required. If no sprinklers, seventy five feet is the maximum CPET travel distance in either case, with an occupant load that exceeds 49 with one exit. When CPET is exceeded two exits are required. In this scenario travel distance is 90 feet, so CPET and travel distance have been exceeded. Two exits are required and need to meet the requirements of Sec. 1015.2.1. They have met one requirement but not the other.

rktect wrote:



> So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind. Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one. Two places exist for this exit. The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to. (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is. Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner? What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area? None, would be my answer. Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area. What about the 20 foot dead end issue?
> 
> So here is the real debacle with this plan in mind. Let's say I decide that he is required to have a 2nd exit and that this exit needs to be 38 feet apart from the other one. Two places exist for this exit. The first, and worst, would be back in the storage room, which you are not allowed to pass through either a kitchen or storage room to get to. (So a major redesign would need to take place for this space) and the 2nd spot would be to add a third door in the lower right hand corner where the seating is. Now what purpose would it serve to remove the door in the lower left corner and add one to the lower right corner? What would be changed for the 4 employees behind the counter should a fire break out at the door serving the counter/kitchen prep/serve area? None, would be my answer. Nothing changed for the employees and nothing really changed for the patrons, except the letter of the code is enforced.
> 
> But one more problem will exist if a 2nd door is required and they want to put it at the seating area. What about the 20 foot dead end issue?


On exit #1 install a exit passageway, Sec. 1021, get the length to where you meet the separation distances in Sec. 1015.2.1


----------



## JBI (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

With all due respect to my learned colleagues... CPET has NOT been exceeded. CPET stops when you have a choice of two exits, that happens at less than 75' in this case.

It is not about CPET, as I posted earlier it IS about travel distance. The place needs a second exit, and that exit must be placed to provide a travel distance of 75' or less. Is there a possibility that a door to the exterior could be added in the storage room? This 'exit' would be for the use of those who are within the storage room ONLY. Everyone else would use the front door for exiting.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

JD, CPET stops when you have a choice of two code complaint exits, in this case they have two exits, but they aren't code complaint exits, would you "grandfather" them in.


----------



## JBI (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

kil - Why are they non-compliant?


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> The travel distance for B, can be 75 ft, if 49 occupants, if more than 49 occupants two exits are required. If no sprinklers, seventy five feet is the maximum CPET travel distance in either case, with an occupant load that exceeds 49 with one exit. When CPET is exceeded two exits are required. In this scenario travel distance is 90 feet, so CPET and travel distance have been exceeded. Two exits are required and need to meet the requirements of Sec. 1015.2.1. They have met one requirement but not the other.     rktect wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On exit #1 install a exit passageway, Sec. 1021, get the length to where you meet the separation distances in Sec. 1015.2.1

Wow.  At first I didn't understand where you were going with that.  And I agree that what you propose is a solution.  I suppose they could also just relocate that door number one around the corner and they would make the 37/38 feet (They are currently at 32 feet).  But I still am asking this question.  What purpose would this serve other than the letter of the code was enforced?  Moving that door, or as you suggested above, relocates it 4-5 feet, maybe.  The people behind the counter, when the fire erupts at the deep fryer by the door to the counter area are still SOL at this point.  There is no exit for them other than to jump over the counter.


----------



## IJHumberson (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

*Josh,* I agree that it is a travel distance issue rather than CPET issue.  However, I respectfully disagree that an exit through the storage room would be a code compliant solution - I maintain that, once it is determined that the space needs to have two exits, then both exits have to be available to all occupants (which means access through a storage room will not comply).

As for the relocation of Exit #1 to the right of where it is drawn, I agree that it changes nothing for the scenario of a fire in the vicinty of the counter/kitchen prep/serve area, but the intent of remotely locating the exits is so that, if one exit is blocked by a fire, the other exit should be available long enough for all occupants to safely egress.  By moving Exit #1 further away from exit #2, the code is met in that manner, and common path of travel is not exceeded.

If the exterior door is existing at the location shown as Exit #1, I would say to take away the EXIT sign and mark the door "NO exit" and then the restauranteur can put a table in that corner


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> With all due respect to my learned colleagues... CPET has NOT been exceeded. CPET stops when you have a choice of two exits, that happens at less than 75' in this case. It is not about CPET, as I posted earlier it IS about travel distance. The place needs a second exit, and that exit must be placed to provide a travel distance of 75' or less. Is there a possibility that a door to the exterior could be added in the storage room? This 'exit' would be for the use of those who are within the storage room ONLY. Everyone else would use the front door for exiting.


Fortunatly for me/them, there is in fact an existing door there.  They demo'd it out and blocked up the wall.  I think they are going to be leaving that door exactly where it is.  This way, the area or space at the seating area no longer requires 2 exits, although 2 are provided, with a seperation/remoteness of 25 feet for the two doors and the employees can exit through the rear door.


----------



## Yikes (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel



			
				\ said:
			
		

> As has been alluded to the common path of travel distance needs to be measured at 90o angles.  It is not to be assumed that a person can cut across a room, particularly in a storage area.quote]
> 
> Actually, this is news to me.  The code takes into account specific instances when we know how the path will be restricted (e.g. assembly fixed seating 1025.8.1, or dining tables, etc.); and it takes into account what may be occuring in a given room based on certain occupancies (1014.3); otherwise, it seems silent on the issue of how to measure CPET distance inside a room.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Let's face it, a code statement like "half the diagonal distance" or "75' of travel distance" (as opposed to 74', or 75'-3") is a very blunt and simple rule / tool designed to answer a wide variety of building configurations: square triangular, round, etc.  Adding a requirement (unless I'm missing it in the code or commentary) that the distance must be measured at 90o angles inside the room seems to imply that the code authors have a greater level of precision and foreknowledge (about how each room is furnished) than is really possible.


----------



## vegas paul (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

The IBC commentary is very specific about measuring travel using 90 degree angles (yeah, yeah, I know the commentary is not the code, but keep reading!).  If you think about it, using 90 degree angles allows for a variety of  configuration of furnishings, storage, etc.   Assuming that some items can be moved periodically, you want the most conservative measurement for travel distance.

Back to a previous comment... A second exit out of the storage/kitchen area is fine for occupants of the storage/kitchen areas.  All exits do NOT have to be compliant for all occupants, an exit analysis should demonstrate that all occupants have the required access to the required exits, but not necessarily all exits.


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this topic.

After discussing this here and talking to the Fire Marshal, we have come to the conclusion that the travel distance was compromised and a second exit is required and that the second one shown does not comply due to remoteness issues as well as CPET.  The one in the storage room will need to go back in.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Just like the old days. Discussion, disagree, respect for differing opinions and application of code sections and the poster is able to find a compliant solution.

Theres no place like home :!:


----------



## Yikes (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Thanks Vegas Paul and mtlog cabin, I learned something new today, and must've previously missed it in the commentary.


----------



## Big Mac (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

This may be extemporaneous, but I feel compelled.

The point about measuring at right angles has been noted in virtually every example given in the code commentary.  And the real point is not that the code officials know a great level of detail about every room.

Quite frankly, as Vegas Paul points out, the point is that they don't and don't pretend to.  The most common sense approach is to measure the path of travel at right angles, which as VP points out will allow for a variety of configurations.  It seems inconceiveable to me that anyone, even the owner can predict what the configuration of contents will be in any room for any given length of time.  Anybody out there move furniture, shelving, etc.

You're probably right.  It's only me and my wife.


----------



## IJHumberson (Dec 4, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

*Big Mac,* I concur.

Also, *I stand corrected - *, Section 1021.1, Exception 5: "Within a _story_, rooms and spaces complying with Section 1015.1 with _exits_ that discharge directly to the exterior at the _level of exit discharge_, are permitted to have one _exit_. 

So, since the Dining area complies with 1015.1 for a single exit, the secondary exit (through the back) is not a required exit access for that space, and the solution of adding an exit out of the storage room is a compliant solution.


----------



## JBI (Dec 4, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Give that man a prize! :mrgreen:


----------



## kilitact (Dec 4, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

I'm guessing the prize is for finding Section 1021.1 exception #5  :?


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 4, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

I must have an older book.  Section 1021.1 doesn't have any exceptions.


----------



## hlfireinspector (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

He is calling out 1019.2 #3, but I do think he meets 1015.1 #2  and if he meets any of 1015.1 he cannot use 1019.2.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

rktect 1 wrote;



> I must have an older book. Section 1021.1 doesn't have any exceptions.


Or you have the 2009 IBC which does have exception #5, has you quoted.  I would agree the space can have one exit and the storage area can have one, clearly code complaint.


----------



##  (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

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 exists:

Note that the requirement is for "exit or exit access doorway".

So what are exits?  They are "That portion of a means of egress system.......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".  Exits terminate at the exit discharge.

The second choice is an exit access doorway.  An exit access is "That portion of a means of egress system that leads from any occupied portion of a building or structure to an exit".

So what is an exit discharge.  An exit discharge is "that portion of the means of a means of egress system between the termination of an exit and a public way".

Section 1015.1 applies to all buildings and is dealing with the occupant load only.  There is no mention of travel distance, which at this point for a B occupancy without sprinklers is 200' per table 1016.1.

Now we get to section 1019 which applies to all buildings.

Table 1019.1 would require two exits for the subject facility, however there are the exceptions "as modified by sections 1015.1 or 1019.2".  Either or both of these sections can be applied as evidenced by 1019.2#3's inclusion of 1015.1.

1015.1 allows one exit based on occupant load with no mention of travel distance.

1019.2 Buildings with one exit.

Only one exit shall be required in buildings as described below:

1. Buildings described in Table 1019.2, provided that the building has not more than one level below the first story above grade plane.

2. R3

3. Single-level buildings with the occupied space at the level of exit discharge provided that the story or space complies with Section 1015.1 as a space with one means of egress.

At first glance, item #1 seems to fit.  But actually it includes a level below the first story and therefor a prescriptive travel distance.  There is no requirement that the occupied space be at the level of exit discharge.  Item #1 could incorporate exterior exit stairs and exterior exit ramps.

Item #3 fits perfectly.

I do believe that for the facility in question, only one exit is required and the maximum travel distance is 200'.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Absolutely great thread.  Just reading it for the first time.  I will offer my humble opinion.

I am with mtlogcabin on this one and everyone has brought some great points to the table.

In my humble opinion:

1) 2 exits are required because only one exit would not comply with the 75' travel distance

2) Because the 2nd exit is required, it must comply with 1015.2.1

3) CPOT is not an issue in this drawing although the layout is not code compliant.

Am I up to speed yet?


----------



## jar546 (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Oh yeah, one for thing.  I know the OP threw this together to get opinions here BUT,

Has anyone else received the exact same thing/format for a commercial submission? :lol:   I know I have


----------



##  (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Jeff,

The travel distance of 75' is in Table 1019.2.  That is the only place it is mentioned in the code.  Section 1019.2 has three separate, distinctive buildings described each of which can have but one exit.  Item #1 sends you to the Table because of the nature of the facility.  For example, there may be a level below the first story or any other exit component that would contravene the description given in item #3 such as stairs or ramps.

If the facility fits the description of item #3 there is no reason to now apply Table 1019.2.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel



			
				tigerloose said:
			
		

> Jeff,The travel distance of 75' is in Table 1019.2.  That is the only place it is mentioned in the code.  Section 1019.2 has three separate, distinctive buildings described each of which can have but one exit.  Item #1 sends you to the Table because of the nature of the facility.  For example, there may be a level below the first story or any other exit component that would contravene the description given in item #3 such as stairs or ramps.
> 
> If the facility fits the description of item #3 there is no reason to now apply Table 1019.2.


I just went back and re-read your 2nd to last post which was very informative.  I see the flow of the code as you describe and understand what you are getting at.  I think this area of the code, like many others needs to be cleaned up.  I am standing by my decision based on the fact that the 2 exits do not meet the separation requirement therefore in my opinion it is ultimately considered 1 exit.  I would have them either move the other exit door or provide another one.  I think that the intent of the code is in 1019.2 since it is more specific even though you do not think that it applies.

When it comes down to it I have to ask myself "Can I defend my decision in a court of law?"  The answer is that I can if I apply 1019.2 and 1015.2.  A good attorney and a sympathetic jury does not care how technically correct you are.  They are only focused on the injured or deceased.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that I interpret it differently and would apply it differently.


----------



##  (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Jeff,

We shall agree to disagree.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

tigerloose wrote;



> The travel distance of 75' is in Table 1019.2. That is the only place it is mentioned in the code


Section 1019.2, needs to meet all the requirements of sec. 1015.1, #2 is cpot, which is 75 feet.

in this case with the first design cpot was exceeded, the last design cpot isn't exceeded.


----------



##  (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

I stand corrected from my statement that a 75' distance is only found in Table 1019.2, however that is moot. There is no CPET issue involved here.

A CPET is a part of the exit access that is common to separate areas within a building that merge into the CPET and compound the number of occupants available to use the exit access.  The definition states that "Paths that merge are CPET".

Many buildings have a CPET according to the literal interpretation of a CPET.  Some as short as you can imagine yet a literal interpretation would require that there be two exits for them all.  Or do CPET's, as logic would imply, come into play once two exits are required.

Imagine an office space with a 30' hallway from a reception area and four offices from that hallway.  Literally, the hallway is a CPET.  Would two exits be required because there exists a CPET?  To apply such a narrow ruling to the restaurant at hand would mean yes the office space would be required to have two exits.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Section 1019.1:  All rooms and spaces within each story shall be provided with and have access to the minimum number of approved independent exits required by Table 1019.1 based on the occupant load of the story, except as modified in Section 1015.1 or 1019.2.

In a non-sprinkled B occupancy, with an occupant load that exceeds 30, once your path of travel exceeds 75 feet two exits are required, based on CPOT in accordance with sec. 1014.3. Section 1015.1 #2 sends you to this section. Section 1019.1 sends you to sec. 1015.1. Common path of travel is the point.   

tigerloose wrote;



> Imagine an office space with a 30' hallway from a reception area and four offices from that hallway. Literally, the hallway is a CPET. Would two exits be required because there exists a CPET? To apply such a narrow ruling to the restaurant at hand would mean yes the office space would be required to have two exits.


 measure from the most remote location, if CPOT is exceeded than two exits are required.


----------



##  (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

1014.3 says that a CPET shall not exceed 75'.  It does not say that you can have a CPET longer than 75' if there are two exits.  Under no circumstance shall a CPET exceed 75' period.  The CPET does not start from the most remote place and continue to the start of the exit discharge.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

quotes from post by tigerloose:



> 1014.3 says that a CPET shall not exceed 75'.


 In this case that's correct.



> It does not say that you can have a CPET longer than 75' if there are two exits.


 CPOT is not a factor once you have two exits, at that point travel distance is used.





> Under no circumstance shall a CPET exceed 75' period.


 in this case, thats correct.



> The CPET does not start from the most remote place and continue to the start of the exit discharge.


 yes, you measure from the most remote point to a location where two exits are available.


----------



##  (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

I GIVE UP


----------



## JBI (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Jeff - BUT...

Do you agree that an 'exit' from the storage room to the exterior will resolve the issue?

Keep in mind that it will ONLY be marked as an 'exit' inside the storage room (the only place in the space that travel distance is a problem)? All other 'exiting' would be through the existing entry/exit.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Don't' know where the storage room exit door idea came from but it won't fly.


----------



## JBI (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

The idea came from that often referred to, little used concept called 'common sense'.

Not unlike the rear door in a commercial kitchen having an 'exit' sign. You don't send the 'customers' through the kitchen, but the kitchen staff can use it. In this instance it is a storage room not a kitchen, but the idea is the same. Let the people IN that space have a way out. Everyone else is already closer than required to an 'exit'.

I know it seems too easy, but consider this...

IF the plans show an 'exit' for use by persons in the storage room (no marcation outside of the storage room), and a single 'exit' for everyone else,

THEN 'travel distance to an exit' is not exceeded at any point, CPET (which all but Kil agree is not the issue) would not be exceeded either.

Other than _attempting_ to shoot down the idea with 'exits can't go through storage rooms', I don't know of a code 'problem' with this proposal. Remember with this arrangement there is NO 'exit going through' the storage room, only an exit directly to the exterior FROM the storage room.

If that's a problem, then there is no code compliant exit from a storage room.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

cite a code section that would allow you to denied this arrangement.

jd wrote:



> which all but Kil agree is not the issue)


jd, go back and reread the posts


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

If a door in the storage room is installed it could be used for stocking the storage room and could be used as an exit for the storage room.  It could not be used for an exit for the rest of the business because it is a higher hazard area.

However, the day after the door is installed for exiting purpose the owner will be told by the local police security expert to install a dead bolt to prevent back door break-ins.  And then it is no longer an exit.

CPOT...CPET... Once they get to the front counter area it is one atmosphere.  A fire in that area would eliminate any way to exit.  If they can't meet the travel distance for a single exit then install a second exit in the reat of the building or install a sprinkler system.


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Well, I think from now on I am going to have to list the codes that I do my reviews under.  In this case I am using 2006 IBC.  We have no intentions of going to the 2009 or 2012 codes.  Probably wait for 2015.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

2006 IBC

You start with 1019.1 which requires 2 exits

Now move down to 1019.2 which will allow a "building" with one exit if it meets one of the 3 items listed

#1 must comply with Table 1019.2. which limits the MAXIMUM travel distance to 75 feet. 2 exits required.

#2 not an R-3 occupancy

#3 Single-level buildings with the occupied space at the level of exit discharge provided that the *story or space complies with Section 1015.1 as a space with one means of egress*

This would be applicable to the original post

1015.1 requires the exit access doorway from any SPACE when one of three conditions can not be met

Condition 2 can not be met because the Common Path of Travel distance exceeds 75 feet.

2 exits are required

Due to the layout of this paticular occupancy with 2 distinct spaces a dining area and a kitchen area the placement of the additional door for an exit from the space (storage/kitchen) that can not meet the CPOT distance is acceptable for that space. The remaining "space" (dining area) is also code compliant as it has its own exit


----------



## JBI (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Kil - Had to go back a couple of pages to find it. Your more recent posts kept going back to CPOT, so you had me confused... Sorry about that.   

Now I do have a quandry though... since you and I apparently AGREE on something, there MUST be a flaw in the logic somewhere!  :lol:


----------



## kilitact (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Yea, this really was a strange tread. First High Desert agreeing with me, which cause me to double check myself, now your agreeing with me. The way I look at it now is that you guys are finally catching up. LOL


----------



## JBI (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Kil - Uhhhhhhhhhhhm, I don't think it was _you_ that suggested the door out the back...   

But I know what you mean, so far today I've actually agreed with you, brudgers AND Incognito! THAT's scary!  :lol:


----------



## High Desert (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

kilitact, I will always agree with you when you're right.


----------



## Big Mac (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

John, et al, I'm not sure we need to rely on that nebulus term "common sense".  Section 1015.1 states "Two exits or exit access doorways FROM ANY SPACE shall be provided......

Section 1019.1 talks about exits from stories - but again uses the language ALL ROOMS AND SPACES, within each story shall be provided with and have access to the number of approved independant exits

This would seem to indicate that separate spaces can be treated independantly


----------



## JBI (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Nebulous?


----------



## Big Mac (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

I told you htese sites need spell check


----------



## JBI (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

Or psoters who can psell...  :lol:


----------



## Big Mac (Dec 8, 2009)

Re: Common path of travel

That ain't lickly to happn


----------

