# Common Path of Travel



## nitramnaed (Jan 13, 2016)

I have a small midwest community fire inspector that handles the plan review for this area.  We are in disagreement over common path of travel as outlined in the 2000 NFPA 101.

Small Quick Serve Restaurant.  No Sprinkler system.

I attached a few documents for your help.  Here’s the code section for reference:



_2000 NFPA 101 - 12.2.5.1 Arrangements of Means of Egress:  Exits shall be located remotely from each other and shall be arranged to minimize the possibility that they might be blocked by an emergency.  __*Exception:  A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 20 ft from any point where serving any number of occupants and for the first 75 ft from any point where serving not more than 50 occupants.*_



There are two basic arguments:


The common path is only 14’-0” long before the occupants have two (2) route choices to an exit (see attached “Common Path.jpg”).  However, the reviewer views the common path as 33’-0” before the occupants have a choice between two (2) exits.

The *point* where the occupant load reaches 50 persons occurs about halfway through our dining room, thereby, allowing 75’-0” for the common path for the back half of the dining room where the occupant load is less than 50 at any point (see attached “Occupant Load.jpg”)

 

I also included the “Exit Separation.jpg” to demonstrate that we meet the intent of the IBC for exit separation in a non-sprinklered building (50% of the diagonal length of the overall area served).


----------



## Dbronson (Jan 13, 2016)

Nitramnaed:

We don't use 101 very often, but I think the reviewer is correct about the point of choice of two exits.  However, the start point for figuring common path of travel  is in the far corner of the stall next to the toilet (See 7.6.1).  Also it appears that there's a fenced outdoor seating area.  Under 101 this needs two exits as well.

Regards,

DB


----------



## cda (Jan 13, 2016)

Is the occupant load high??

Seems like most of the place is fixed seating??


----------



## steveray (Jan 14, 2016)

I think I agree with your exit separation concept....but his CPET with the added distance for the bathroom per DB.


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

Plus as long as you meet the required seperation, code does not say where the doors have to be located


----------



## skipharper (Jan 14, 2016)

Do you use the I-Codes? If yes, use the IBC which trumps NFPA101


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 14, 2016)

> Do you use the I-Codes? If yes' date=' use the IBC which trumps NFPA101[/quote']He is the AHJ in this case and he is using 2000 NFPA 101.  No IBC in play here.


----------



## Code (Jan 14, 2016)

> Is the occupant load high??Seems like most of the place is fixed seating??


I agree with cda, even with the proposed door out the side, the only way I see this working is if the occupant load is below 50.

I wasn't aware that the IBC trumped the NFPA


----------



## Examiner (Jan 14, 2016)

I did not know that any jurisdiction was now using the NFPA as a building code.  What is the jurisdiction's adopted building code?  Not the adopted fire code.


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 14, 2016)

> Is the occupant load high??Seems like most of the place is fixed seating??


With the calculated length of the queue line this is an occupancy of over 50.


----------



## north star (Jan 14, 2016)

# #



> "  I wasn't aware that the IBC trumped the NFPA "


From the `12 IBC, *[A] 102.4.2 - Provisions in referenced codes and standards:*"Where the extent of the reference to a referenced code or standard includes

subject matter that is within the scope of this code or the International Codes

listed in Section 101.4, the provisions of this code or the International Codes

listed in Section 101.4, as applicable, shall take precedence over the provisions

in the referenced code or standard."

# #


----------



## Builder Bob (Jan 14, 2016)

The common path of travel is more correct with the reviewer's location marked in photo two..... however, as stated, the common path of travel is short because it does not include the means of egress in the restroom.

As far as NFPA vs. IBC,  some states use NFPA for fire prevention (FIre) while the buidling departments may use IBC.

The intent of separation of exits and common path of travel is to ensure exits are readily available when an emergency arises - whether natural (fire, severe storms, etc.) or man made (arson, man with gun, etc.)

In the presentation of picture one, a man could easily block access to an exit for 24 patrons........ while picture two still allows a single gunman to cover the same area, patrons at least have an option to rush the exit further away from the perpetrator...... thus ensuring a better chance of survival.


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

> With the calculated length of the queue line this is an occupancy of over 50.


What is the sq ft of just the dining area?


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

> With the calculated length of the queue line this is an occupancy of over 50.


Guess so, with just fixed seating looks like 45?

Just seems it is being calculated wrong


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

> With the calculated length of the queue line this is an occupancy of over 50.


Still as long as you meet the seperation requirement, the code does not say where the two doors have to be located!


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 14, 2016)

In my opinion, I believe you’re dealing with exit recognition and remoteness issues. Maybe the reviewer is addressing your remoteness with regard to the arrangement and potential for both being blocked by one emergency [7.5.1.3 as referenced by occupancy chapter] and confusing the common path travel (where can the occupant see two clear exits). You are correct with the allowance for 75’ since the occupant load is >50 factoring the building/area. The “area served” includes the area of the Kitchen and business occupancy since there is not fire rated separation so one would revert back to the “building” for measuring the diagonal distance for remoteness while not using the back door……… remember the Kitchen is not an exit [12.2.5.2] therefore the exit arrangement is off if measuring the actual diagonal distance of the building or area served.

While the proposed design meets the ½ rule it does not meet the potential for one emergency blocking both. Assuming that the reviewer’s counter is as such because the practicality with the side wall prohibits the use of that area near the Storage to create the desirable remote exit and the limitation of adding another exit in the Kitchen area. This is an issue frequently missed by designers and necessary as the writers of 101 have remained hard fast on through all revisions. Look at what situations we face in today’s world and natural disasters.

NFPA 101, 2000

7.5.1.3 Where more than one exit is required from a building or portion thereof, such exits shall be remotely located from each other and shall be arranged and constructed to minimize the possibility that more than one has the potential to be blocked by any one fire or other emergency condition.

12.2.5.2 Means of egress shall not be permitted through kitchens, storerooms, restrooms, closets, or hazardous areas as described in 12.3.2.

Handbook Commentary: A common path of travel exists where a space is arranged so that occupants within that space are able to travel in only one direction to reach any of the exits or to reach the point at which the occupants have the choice of two paths of travel to remote exits.

………………………… requires that the exit accesses be remotely located from each other to minimize the possibility that more than one of the exit accesses has the potential to be blocked by any one fire or other emergency condition. Such judgment is left to the authority having jurisdiction, which might be influenced by the fact that the diagonal measurement criterion of 7.5.1.3 was not met.

P.S.  Looks like BB hit it also mine was a work in progress and just finished between plan reviews using 101.....


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 14, 2016)

I don't believe the purpose or intent of exit separation or CPOT, whether based on IBC or NFPA, has anything to do with escape because of perpetrators with guns.


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 14, 2016)

> Guess so, with just fixed seating looks like 45?
> 
> Just seems it is being calculated wrong


Calculating the queue area at the counter.  5 SF/Person = 14 people in this area alone.


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 14, 2016)

> Still as long as you meet the seperation requirement, the code does not say where the two doors have to be located!


True, but the reviewer is saying that where he assumes the point of CPOT it is over 20 feet.  So we need another door as indicated on photo 2.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 14, 2016)

Look at drawing 1 there are 79 calculated occupants so two exits are required. I noticed a set of stairs across from the ladies restroom. Are there 2 exits from that area served by the stairs? If not the common path starts in the lower level.


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

> The common path of travel is more correct with the reviewer's location marked in photo two..... however, as stated, the common path of travel is short because it does not include the means of egress in the restroom. As far as NFPA vs. IBC,  some states use NFPA for fire prevention (FIre) while the buidling departments may use IBC.
> 
> The intent of separation of exits and common path of travel is to ensure exits are readily available when an emergency arises - whether natural (fire, severe storms, etc.) or man made (arson, man with gun, etc.)
> 
> In the presentation of picture one, a man could easily block access to an exit for 24 patrons........ while picture two still allows a single gunman to cover the same area, patrons at least have an option to rush the exit further away from the perpetrator...... thus ensuring a better chance of survival.


I would agree with a corridor situation or some other building

This is is a hole in the wall restaurant. Just like you see all the time.

It could be argued that if the door is moved to near the counter..

A person coming out of the bottom bathroom could be in danger, if there is a problem around the main doors.

Once again the code suggests remoteness, but does not say shall be done


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 14, 2016)

> I don't believe the purpose or intent of exit separation or CPOT, whether based on IBC or NFPA, has anything to do with escape because of perpetrators with guns.


It does partly in addition to other potentials and is based on being able to recognize (2) required remote exits and the ability to escape from fire or other single emergency condition/event (i.e. collapse, flooding, active shooter, vehicle whisky throttle etc.) the exits are not remote in accordance with 101.


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

NFPA 101, 2000

7.5.1.3 Where more than one exit is required from a building or portion thereof, such exits shall be remotely located from each other and shall be arranged and constructed to minimize the possibility that more than one has the potential to be blocked by any one fire or other emergency condition.

If the door is moved to where the reviewer wants it, and if you come out of the bottom bathroom, what does that do to the cpot?

You gain 3-6 feet seperation by moving the door??


----------



## steveray (Jan 14, 2016)

The diagonal is based on the area requiring the 2 exits, not the kitchen...it has it's own exit it appears....7.5.1.3 seems like a "touch the badge" section without any hard parameters the official can require whatever he wants...IMO

May be different in NFPA, but ICC kitchen people would exit the kitchen door, diners would pick one of the 2 in that area....


----------



## steveray (Jan 14, 2016)

> Look at drawing 1 there are 79 calculated occupants so two exits are required. I noticed a set of stairs across from the ladies restroom. Are there 2 exits from that area served by the stairs? If not the common path starts in the lower level.


I think that is just "stock room" hatching....or the door swings over the stairs.....


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

> I did not know that any jurisdiction was now using the NFPA as a building code.  What is the jurisdiction's adopted building code?  Not the adopted fire code.


Florida??????


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 14, 2016)

> I think that is just "stock room" hatching....or the door swings over the stairs.....


Yes.  There is no stair.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 14, 2016)

> The diagonal is based on the area requiring the 2 exits, not the kitchen...it has it's own exit it appears....7.5.1.3 seems like a "touch the badge" section without any hard parameters the official can require whatever he wants...IMOMay be different in NFPA, but ICC kitchen people would exit the kitchen door, diners would pick one of the 2 in that area....


I don't see a wall separating the Kitchen so if I'm not mistaken the "area" served includes the Kitchen as mentioned previously so the measurement must include the Kitchen area, hence lies the issue since the rear door can not be classified as an exit.......in my humble opinion.  The problem remains a remoteness issue.


----------



## cda (Jan 14, 2016)

> I don't see a wall separating the Kitchen so if I'm not mistaken the "area" served includes the Kitchen as mentioned previously so the measurement must include the Kitchen area, hence lies the issue since the rear door can not be classified as an exit.......in my humble opinion. The problem remains a remoteness issue.


Kitchen has its own exit??

If the kitchen is included, don't think can meet the door separation requirement


----------



## steveray (Jan 15, 2016)

Kitchen area...one exit required, rear left...done. People IN the kitchen can obviously egress through the kitchen.

"Dining area...2 required, separated by (1/2 or whatever) the diagonal of that area...done....If a room in a building needs 2 exits, they don't need to be separated by the diagonal of the building....Not sure how NFPA defines area, but a rated separation should have nothing to do with it unless it is a fire area.....

DISCLAIMER: I know nothing about NFPA 101 other than I do not enforce it...


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 15, 2016)

> Kitchen area...one exit required, rear left...done. People IN the kitchen can obviously egress through the kitchen."Dining area...2 required, separated by (1/2 or whatever) the diagonal of that area...done....If a room in a building needs 2 exits, they don't need to be separated by the diagonal of the building....Not sure how NFPA defines area, but a rated separation should have nothing to do with it unless it is a fire area.....
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I know nothing about NFPA 101 other than I do not enforce it...


Remoteness is required in all codes even legacy ones and this should not be viewed as "room"

*IBC Land*

*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. Interlocking or scissor stairs shall be counted as one exit stairway._

_Commentary: __This section provides a method to determine, quantitatively, remoteness between exits and exit access doors based on the dimensional characteristics of the space served.__ .................................................................................................__While technical proof is not available to substantiate this method of determining remoteness, it has been found to be realistic and practical for building designs except for the common building with exits in a center core and office spaces around the perimeter._

I agree that people will use the Kitchen even in a case where one may escape a non-fire event but the Kitchen by code is always considered a hazardous area and not considered part of a complaint MOE in all codes if my experience serves me correctly. Since the space of question is open the measurement is off and this is probably why the reviewer suggested the alternative exit (which is not a good practice for non-licensed design) public employee.


----------



## steveray (Jan 15, 2016)

FMB...I agree in part...The kitchen cannot be used for the dining area exiting, but it can be used for the kitchen exit. "Area served" or "space served" is the key distinction. If the 2 doors are only serving the dining area, that is where the diagonal measurement comes in...


----------



## tmurray (Jan 15, 2016)

In case it is any help, we define the minimum distance between required exits in Canada the same way. Half the maximum diagonal dimension of the floor area must be provided between 2 exits.

In my experience, if we're doing something the same on both sides of the border, it's probably a good idea.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 15, 2016)

My point pertaining to this specific issue is the fact that the Kitchen is open floor area to the dining area and thus the entire floor area must be calculated into the exit remoteness/arrangement in accordance with code since the Kitchen door will not be considered any part of a MOE even for a Kitchen.  The purpose for the door in a Kitchen is for deliveries.  Now will people use it, of course but technically speaking and the way we teach it is that it is not an exit for terms of figuring the number, travel distance, CPOT or remoteness.  The required exits for the building/area is two based on occupant load and therefore the two exits must be remote and the measurement is from corner to corner of the building since open floor plan in my humble opinion.


----------



## JPohling (Jan 15, 2016)

I agree with Steve.  If the kitchen exits independently then I would not include it in the diagonal dim. for separation of exits.  I know nothing about NFPA exiting.


----------



## cda (Jan 15, 2016)

> My point pertaining to this specific issue is the fact that the Kitchen is open floor area to the dining area and thus the entire floor area must be calculated into the exit remoteness/arrangement in accordance with code since the Kitchen door will not be considered any part of a MOE even for a Kitchen.  The purpose for the door in a Kitchen is for deliveries.  Now will people use it' date=' of course but technically speaking and the way we teach it is that it is not an exit for terms of figuring the number, travel distance, CPOT or remoteness.  The required exits for the building/area is two based on occupant load and therefore the two exits must be remote and the measurement is from corner to corner of the building since open floor plan in my humble opinion. [/quote']Boy, this thing is going to get a whole redesign.
> 
> I do no think there is enough exterior wall, to meet the half diagonal, if corner to corner is used????


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 15, 2016)

The door arrangement in photo 3 meets the IBC requirements for separation

1005.5. Distribution of egress capacity.

Where more than one exit, or access to more than one exit, is required, the means of egress shall be configured such that the loss of any one exit, or access to one exit, shall not reduce the available capacity to less than 50 percent of the required capacity.

I agree with FB it is a poor design however i believe it meets code


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 15, 2016)

The reviewer is not including the kitchen as part of the exiting plan.

Remember this is not a issue about separation of exit doors.  It's an disagreement over CPOT termination.  The reviewer is asking for the additional exit door to satisfy CPOT requirements not separation of exits.


----------



## cda (Jan 15, 2016)

> The reviewer is not including the kitchen as part of the exiting plan.Remember this is not a issue about separation of exit doors. It's an disagreement over CPOT termination. The reviewer is asking for the additional exit door to satisfy CPOT requirements not separation of exits.


Still think reviewer is wrong on that point.

If the door gets shifted, what does that do for the CPOT?

Still looking at that bottom bathroom, and where is the CPOT, if the doors are shifted??


----------



## cda (Jan 15, 2016)

> The reviewer is not including the kitchen as part of the exiting plan.Remember this is not a issue about separation of exit doors. It's an disagreement over CPOT termination. The reviewer is asking for the additional exit door to satisfy CPOT requirements not separation of exits.


Have I suggested talk to the reviewers boss??

I think the reviwer is over thinking this, or reviwer just went to a class on CPOT???


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 15, 2016)

> _*Exception: A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first 20 ft from any point where serving any number of occupants and for the first 75 ft from any point where serving not more than 50 occupants.*_


I agree with where the reviewer has determined the CPOT ends. I do not believe the CPOT exceeds 60ft and does not serve an area of more than 50 occupants so I see no reason for him to try and require an additional door..


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 15, 2016)

Not to make light of this, but why such an an "old" code? If in Florida where use of this code first came into play as a suggested alternative to the I-codes (at Disney World) it was referred to as "Mickey's" Code. They tried to get it accepted in California and delayed our code cycle by 6 years.


----------



## nitramnaed (Jan 18, 2016)

> Not to make light of this' date=' but why such an an "old" code? If in Florida where use of this code first came into play as a suggested alternative to the I-codes (at Disney World) it was referred to as "Mickey's" Code. They tried to get it accepted in California and delayed our code cycle by 6 years.[/quote']I guess he doesn't want to buy a new book.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jan 20, 2016)

> I don't believe the purpose or intent of exit separation or CPOT, whether based on IBC or NFPA, has anything to do with escape because of perpetrators with guns.


other emergency condition

open to interpretation

emergency -

  noun, plural *emergencies.* 1.  a sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action.



2.  a state, especially of need for help or relief, created by some unexpected event: _a weather emergency; a financial emergency._


----------

