Egress Court Exterior Wall Rating

[SeattleArch]

I am working on an existing landmarked building from the 50's that is being converted into a Daycare facility. The distance between the building and the property line to the north is 17'-8". There are several doors that egress through this Yard/Egress Court.

Per1029.3:
Where an egress court serving a building or portion thereof is less than 10 feet (3048 mm) in width, the egress court walls shall have not less than 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction for a distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) above the floor of the egress court. Openings within such walls shall be protected by opening protectives having a fire protection rating of not less than 3/4 hour.

The way I read the code and per the definition of an egress court my understanding is that in this situation the Egress Court width is 17'-8" and the exterior walls/openings would not require a rating. When I read the commentary, it also states:

1029.1 ... It is essential that exterior egress courts conveying occupants from an exit to a public way be sufficiently open to prevent the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases in the event of a fire as well as wide enough to accommodate the number of occupants leaving in that direction.

To me this indicates the intent of the code is to ensure that there is enough openness for smoke to escape not that the walking surface needs to be 10' in width. I see no reference to any requirement for the distance from the face of the building to the exit discharge path. Does this align with you experience/understanding?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I recently reviewed a day care center, in a new building. Same problem, except that they had positioned the building less then 10 feet from the property line on the north side. Rather than deal with protected openings, they moved the building two feet to the south to make the egress court just over 10 feet in width.

I think your plan meets the code.

 

[SeattleArch]

I recently reviewed a day care center, in a new building. Same problem, except that they had positioned the building less then 10 feet from the property line on the north side. Rather than deal with protected openings, they moved the building two feet to the south to make the egress court just over 10 feet in width.

I think your plan meets the code.

Thank You, to confirm you think the plan meeting the codes without protected openings?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The code says what the code says. I note that you have a landscape border that appears to be dense bushes, so occupants won't have the use of the full 17'-8" width of the court. But at least part of the sidewalk is more than 10 feet from the face of the building.

Here's what the 2021 IBC Commentary says about 1029.3:

The purpose of this section is to protect the occupants
served by the egress court from the building that they
are exiting. If occupants must walk closely by the exterior
walls of the court, the walls are required to have
the specified fire-resistance rating and the openings
are required to be protected as specified. This requirement
is only for the first 10 feet (3048 mm) above the
level of the egress court since the exposure hazard
from walls and openings above 10 feet (3048 mm) is
reduced. The two exceptions provide for egress courts
that serve a very low number of occupants and the
specified residential occupancy where the protection
requirement would be located.

The farther you can keep the sidewalk from the face of the building, the better. That said, per the letter of the code the court can be 10'-0 1/2" wide and it complies with the code.

 

[RLGA]

The drawing shows a yard, not an egress court, because the yard is not bounded on three or more sides. I would not consider the ramps "bounded" by walls or "other closing devices."

 

[SeattleArch]

The drawing shows a yard, not an egress court, because the yard is not bounded on three or more sides. I would not consider the ramps "bounded" by walls or "other closing devices."

Thanks, one of the weird things about the definition of an egress court is that it includes yards....

 

[RLGA]

Thanks, one of the weird things about the definition of an egress court is that it includes yards....View attachment 14185

Yeah, I never really thought about that. Based on that definition, every exit discharge, other than from a horizontal exit, is an egress court until the public way or lot line is reached.

 

[steveray]

Well I think you have to use the definition of court there too...

[BG]COURT. An open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices.