Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
Dumb code question:
If based on your occupancy load you are only required to have one exit from a tenant space, and you are within the max travel distance from any point to the exit of that space, it is not possible for there to be a dead end corridor, correct?
Dead end corridors cannot apply to spaces requiring only one exit, true?
is the tenant space a part of a larger complex that requires two means of egress? if that's the case, then dead end corridors apply
it seems to me if the space is large enough to require a corridor, chances are it requires two means of egress. otherwise it's a single family house or something, and those are hallways, not corridors.
In tenant planning, you have two types of exit scenario which both have to work - the exit system inside the space, and within the base building exit system, taking your spaces' scenario into account.
You've already defined your tenant space as within area requirement for a single exit. That's it, you have one exit, you're done. Single-exit configurations as allowed by the code don't cause dead-end situations.
You then need to check whether the building itself works based on the addition of your tenant space configuration. Your single exit space will lead to the corridor, which is part of the building's exiting system. At that point exiting of the building, not from your space, is subject to the dead-end corridor requirements. Your travel distance requirements will come into play here as well.
One thing that came up, aside from travel distance... Dead end corridor does not apply to the space requiring only one exit, but common path of travel... Meaning basically with the smaller space common path of travel to the front door into the exit corridor serviced by the two building exits, but if the common path of travel is more than what is allowed, In my case with my occupancy 100 feet max, then I would be required to add another exit....
goddamnit, look it up!
this could be found way more readily and reliably in the code than on this forum, I can tell you! are you really so lazy that you trust other's potentially foggy interpretation of the code above yr own researching ability? are you aware that different nations and different states and even different counties have different requirements?
what if i told you this:
A dead end corridor is completely fine [some codes even require it], and you only need one egress route, particularly for a residential building. Perferably, you should not have any stairs at all, as elevators are far more reliable and tend to fail less.
And you didnt look any of it up... and you showed it to yr boss, and she didnt look it up and now you show the project in late DD to the Dept. of Buildings and they're like, are you stupid?
This forum is speculative and transient. Not a library.
Cool it jp - some of us enjoy speculating on code conundrums,
speculation? on future systems? on banal code? I hate that... with a deep passion.
jaegerbombs is what im most interested in, you guru, you
Well yeah of course you look it up and We all do that, but sometimes having a conversation about it makes things clear... Code isn't always clear as crystal... Seems more lazy to pretend you know and understand what the correct interpretation of code is and dismiss code as boring just cause you think it's mundane...
IMHO it is interesting stuff, it's about understanding the rules of the game... Logic of the rules etc. It's sort of fun...
There's only so much interest in talking about lame politics or academics or your favorite color or starchirects or unemployment, etc.... Let's talk about real shit that actually impacts built work... Just kidding, but if you're not interested, nobody is forcing you to read...
code is actually designed to be as clear as crystal to as wide variety of users as possible. that is literally it's method of getting across it's purpose, which is ultimately facilitating a certain standard of living for all citizens. I cant make it any simpler.
talking about it with randoms on the internerds doesn't always clarify things, now does it?
actually it is useful... i've learned a thing or two... somebody asking a question, or saying something, makes me read it to see what it actuially says...
most people here are people working and professionals who deal with the code every day, so why not talk about it? you can learn from each others experience... hear what people have to say, right or wrong, at least it asks a question and chances are, you wouldn't look it up unless the question comes up... so you learn it by actually running into questions working...
and dude, what you said about the code makes no sense... that is not what the code does, it is not its intent
jpl: "code is actually designed to be as clear as crystal to as wide variety of users as possible."
clarifies one thing - you've never read the code. At least not the ones I use.
There are many valid points across these threads. The one tip i will give any young intern or licensed architect that needs to retake his exams, is if you are confused about any code issue, after doing your own research, and discussing this with your senior code experts if you have any in house, Go talk to the ATJ ASAP get them involved early in the process. drop a nickle in my jar on your way out.
AHJ-authority having jurisdiction
that ICC publishes a code commentary ought to tell one how successful they are at designing a "clear as crystal" code.
Unless it is 50'. Chapter 10 of the IBC has a table which prescribes maximum dead end lengths based on occupancy and whether the structure is sprinklered.
50 if sprinklered...
i agree with jp. these threads usually only succeed at spreading misinformation and making an interpretation foggier. as donq says, do your own research and if you're still not sure talk to your ahj. speculation doesn't help.
and not to be a total debbie downer, if you do like to talk code at cocktail parties (yeah, you're that guy), the icc has a discussion board that is totally code wonky, but i think is generally a little better informed than the stuff i've found here. [sorry, guys.]
In this thread, JPL said:
"I would like to talk about such topics as detailing, or materials, or semantics, or theory, or pseudo philosophy, even. I would love to talk about responsibilty and liabilty and how an architect can garner power by accepting responsibilty."
Great ideas. I say "bravo". So now here comes someone with a legitimate question about the code, and here's JPL saying:
"this could be found way more readily and reliably in the code than on this forum, I can tell you! are you really so lazy that you trust other's potentially foggy interpretation of the code above yr own researching ability?"
JPL, you had me at the apologizing, but lost me at the trolling.
If you can't hang with the conversation, graciously bow out.
As Dean Wormer once said, "Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son".
@WADW: Talking and understanding the code is how the big boys play.
Sounds like you have a long way to go.
Good luck with the CAD monkey gig.
have you been drinking, oldfogey?
lol... Yeah won except an architecture forum shouldn't be a "cocktail party"... Maybe conversations spread misinformation but then who really reads a forum and thinks "hmmm... Archinect users said so, so it MUST BE TRUE..."
It's not like talking about it does damage, this is not who are you going to vote for campaigning, it's a conversation about practical information, if anybody did not actually then go and read the thing to come to a solid understanding of what it says, then they've got problems... Same as a discussion about building technology or details or practice.., and honestly, if you read something that doesn't look right, you are welcome to point it out...
Why the antagonism towards discussions concerning real stuff? If archinect were just a cocktail party, better to go to a bar...
code is clear? yeah, clear as mud. talk to one code official one day, and talk to another - same day or next - you'll get a different interpretation. talking this out is good, it helps frame the argument/discussion when talking to an obtuse official or even a novice.
oh, and looking it up? most states have amendments, so there really is no nationally accepted IBC without amendments.
this was a sweet link somebody posted on a previous thread... basically has all different state codes... of course within that there would still be local jursdictional differences, but its a good starting place...
Old Durtay Fogey: There's a huge difference between offering pertinent discourse on a given topic and merely waisting other people's time with questions that can be found in books.
The OP was about tenancy code and distances. Specific numbers that can be found in specific texts. Not about 'why is the tenancy code and these distances stipulated this way when they could be more logically stipulated [nevermind arrived at] in this more logical way?''
It's not that I can't 'hang' [such a new word for you, you just had to find a context to use it in?] with banal posts, it's that I don't like doing other people's research for them, especially when that research can be found at one's local library, nevermind a Google search.
If this post was about how the code gets derived or how it gets interpreted, I could dig my teeth into it. As it's merely a question and answer session, yes, I will bow out, if not at all gracefully.
Actually jpl, no the OP wasn't asking about distances... It is asking a question that would not be explicitly written but can be inferred: that when your tenant space only requires one exit, that it is not possible to have a dead end corridor... That seemed to make sense but it depends a little bit on interpretation: old fogies response actually confirmed what I thought, but he articulated it in a very clear way which was actually pretty useful...
pretending you are superior to everybody else...? That you already know everything when clearly you didn't even understand what the question was asking... Just kidding, but give up already, why don't you admit you didn't actually read the questions or think about the response? Okay piece... Last word!!! ;-)
Whatever, I confess, I don't care very much about code, or how it's derived or reading in general. All I care about is secksy forms and jaeger, to be honest. But whilst I know how to get jaeger, I have no clue how those secksy forms get past code! If someone can tell me how those smarties write a calculus driven geometry statement to specically address issues of municipal codes I would be eternally grateful! Albeit in the form of jaeger bombs.