• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Section 404 Atriums 2006 IBC

nitramnaed

nitramnaed

Sawhorse
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
182
Location
L'Etolle du Nord
I’m working on a 5-story building with an atrium space. See attached photo. Building is fully sprinklered and as you can see in the picture, sprinklers and windows installed in accordance with 404.5. Exceptions. The tenant is a restaurant and part of the space is planned to be open above to the atrium. Building department says no-way. Have to have a 1-hour separation. My initial code review used section 404.2 Exeption. The way I read it this is, if we are on the atrium floor, which we are, and are fully sprinklered, which we are, it is an approved use.Am I missing something here? Thanks All! Jeff

View attachment 2046

View attachment 2046

/monthly_2014_04/IMG_0612.jpg.77af42425da527eef696cc7f14b68a02.jpg
 
404.2 Use.

The floor of the atrium shall not be used for other than low fire hazard uses and only approved materials and decorations in accordance with the International Fire Code shall be used in the atrium space.

Exception: The atrium floor area is permitted to be used for any approved use where the individual space is provided with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.

From 2009

Not clear

Because an automatic sprinkler system at the ceiling of an atrium may not be effective for a fire on the floor of the atrium due to the ceiling height or obstructions to the sprinkler discharge, the use and activities of the floor level and the types of materials in the atrium space must be controlled. This section applies to all atriums regardless of their height or area. Low fire-hazard uses would limit the atrium floor to such functions as pedestrian walk-through areas, security desks and reception areas. Storage areas, fabrication areas and office areas would not be low fire-hazard uses. Chapter 8 of the IFC regulates the use of decorative materials and furnishings.

If the floor area is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system that can provide the required protection, then its use is not restricted. The exception stipulates that such areas must be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system as is required throughout the remainder of the atrium.

Xxxxx. Is the area going to be just for dining or to include full blown kitchen??
 
Good question

"""Storage areas, fabrication areas and office areas would not be low fire-hazard uses. """"

How do you take this comment;;;

The exception stipulates that such areas must be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system as is required throughout the remainder of the atrium.

Seems like it is requiring sprinklers down near the floor level meaning you need a ceiling at that level

Not near any books to research
 
"""any approved use""""

"""APPROVED. Acceptable to the code official or authority having jurisdiction. """"" ??????
 
Doesn't NFPA 13 have provisions for (taller) atria?

Happen to agree with cda on the definition of 'approved'. But the Code Official should be able to explain what his concerns are so that they could possibly be mitigated with design... like modifying the sprinkler system to protect the floor of the atrium more effectively and/or possibly offer to separate the kitchen from the dining area?
 
Here is the brief response I got back about 404.2 Exception from the AHJ.

"The exception assumes the atrium is completed based on the building code requirements for an atrium . . . .. one-hour protection . . . . . .section 404.5"
 
nitramnaed said:
Here is the brief response I got back about 404.2 Exception from the AHJ."The exception assumes the atrium is completed based on the building code requirements for an atrium . . . .. one-hour protection . . . . . .section 404.5"
Click to expand...
Not a good answer

I thought the amount of combustibles was limited by code maybe IFC??? But cannot find anything

Code does not allow an office in it?? Because of s the paperwork or possible module furniture??

Waiting for the atrium specialist to wake up
 
I checked the commentary and they pretty much spell out floor of atrium w/o sprinklers can only be low fire hazard. To make it simple "A Lobby". But if sprinklers are provided it's any approved use. To me that's anything but an "H" occupancy.

Our plan is to provide sprinkler protection for the area. No ceiling required to sprinkler it's only a 20' x 16' area.
 
nitramnaed said:
I checked the commentary and they pretty much spell out floor of atrium w/o sprinklers can only be low fire hazard. To make it simple "A Lobby". But if sprinklers are provided it's any approved use. To me that's anything but an "H" occupancy. Our plan is to provide sprinkler protection for the area. No ceiling required to sprinkler it's only a 20' x 16' area.
Click to expand...
But how high are the sprinklers in the area you want to use??

I kind of read it still has to be low level hazard
 
I would direct you to look at an Embassy Suites hotel, and many other hotels that have atria used for dining.

I would also direct you to NFPA 13, in the Annex, which describes "Restaurant seating areas" (i.e. dining areas) as "light hazard occupancies." "Restaurant services areas" (i.e. kitchen) are described as "ordinary hazard occupancies." Thus, even without the sprinkler system, the dining area is considered a "low fire hazard" (i.e. light hazard occupancy) by the NFPA.
 
RLGA said:
I would direct you to look at an Embassy Suites hotel, and many other hotels that have atria used for dining.I would also direct you to NFPA 13, in the Annex, which describes "Restaurant seating areas" (i.e. dining areas) as "light hazard occupancies." "Restaurant services areas" (i.e. kitchen) are described as "ordinary hazard occupancies." Thus, even without the sprinkler system, the dining area is considered a "low fire hazard" (i.e. light hazard occupancy) by the NFPA.
Click to expand...
I thought the code use to limit the fire load in an atrium ??
 
cda said:
I thought the code use to limit the fire load in an atrium ??
Click to expand...
What code?

The former UBC directed the user to the Fire Code for combustible furnishings. The IBC only directs the user to the Fire Code for "approved materials and decorations." The requirements in the IFC replicates much of the same criteria in the IBC, but also includes requirements for furnishings (all for Group I occupancies) and vegetation. I couldn't see any requirements that "limit" the quantity installed, just the "quality" or "performance" of what is installed as it relates to fire and combustibility.

If a lobby is an acceptable use, then I would point out that most lobbies today have furnishings that would equal or exceed the fire load present in any restaurant seating area.
 
RLGA said:
What code? The former UBC directed the user to the Fire Code for combustible furnishings. The IBC only directs the user to the Fire Code for "approved materials and decorations." The requirements in the IFC replicates much of the same criteria in the IBC, but also includes requirements for furnishings (all for Group I occupancies) and vegetation. I couldn't see any requirements that "limit" the quantity installed, just the "quality" or "performance" of what is installed as it relates to fire and combustibility.

If a lobby is an acceptable use, then I would point out that most lobbies today have furnishings that would equal or exceed the fire load present in any restaurant seating area.
Click to expand...
Been in the business to long all the codes and myths merge
 
Asked for clarification and received this from the AHJ:

"There appears to be a connection with the proposed new restaurant and the atrium. We do not see any one hour rating of the atrium in the building . . . . a lot of glass. What do you have for a proposal in the plans to allow this increased fire load (kitchen and assembly) and occupant load to the non-rated atrium?"
 
Up to three floors may be open to the atrium without separation. Check to see if sprinklers were used to protect the glass. This was (and still is) an acceptable method for atrium separation protection.
 
The way the AHJ SHOULD reply is to have the proposed occupancy be included in the Rational Analysis required by 909.4.

I thought the code use to limit the fire load in an atrium
Click to expand...
\ Close - it does not limit the fire load, however the fire load MUST be taken into account in the design of the smoke control system. What is the design fire based on? There is a huge difference between a simple lobby desk with open circulation vs grouped upholstered furniture or a sales kiosk. The Rational Analysis needs to include the Design Fire heat release rate and the description of what constitutes that (say 4 lightly upholstered chairs and a table with tablecloth). This is then the limiting factor for fire loading, and would be a condition of approval (which the FD needs to inspect for until they tear the building down).

But how high are the sprinklers in the area you want to use
Click to expand...
\ This is another thing that needs to be in the rational analysis - the FPE should determine the reaction time for the sprinklers based on the design fire and t-squared growth until fusing of the sprinkler. This is longer the higher you get until it is essentially an un-sprinklered fire. The longer the fire grows until suppression, the more exhaust you need.

Up to three floors may be open to the atrium without separation
Click to expand...
\ For areas open to the Atrium (i.e. those allowable three floors open to the atrium), the rational analysis needs to include the design fire in that area, perhaps moderated for lower and therefore faster acting sprinklers, then analyze it as a window plume or balcony spill plume, or as appropriate for the actual arrangement.
 
Dr. J said:
The way the AHJ SHOULD reply is to have the proposed occupancy be included in the Rational Analysis required by 909.4. \

Close - it does not limit the fire load, however the fire load MUST be taken into account in the design of the smoke control system. What is the design fire based on? There is a huge difference between a simple lobby desk with open circulation vs grouped upholstered furniture or a sales kiosk. The Rational Analysis needs to include the Design Fire heat release rate and the description of what constitutes that (say 4 lightly upholstered chairs and a table with tablecloth). This is then the limiting factor for fire loading, and would be a condition of approval (which the FD needs to inspect for until they tear the building down).

\

This is another thing that needs to be in the rational analysis - the FPE should determine the reaction time for the sprinklers based on the design fire and t-squared growth until fusing of the sprinkler. This is longer the higher you get until it is essentially an un-sprinklered fire. The longer the fire grows until suppression, the more exhaust you need.

\

For areas open to the Atrium (i.e. those allowable three floors open to the atrium), the rational analysis needs to include the design fire in that area, perhaps moderated for lower and therefore faster acting sprinklers, then analyze it as a window plume or balcony spill plume, or as appropriate for the actual arrangement.
Click to expand...
You do not read it to require sprinklers at the first level???

""""But how high are the sprinklers in the area you want to use??

I kind of read it still has to be low level hazard""""
 
Let me see if I understand what I have to do:

Because this space was previously office and now we have a restaurant I have to show by "Rational Analysis" that the sprinkler system in conjunction with smoke control is adequate for a Ordinary Hazard Occupancy Group 1 NFPA 13). Correct?

If true, I have no clue, so it sounds like a job for a Fire Protection Engineer.
 
Almost. You have to show that the new arrangement of furniture does not exceed the basis for the design fire for the original Rational Analysis.

If this was originally designed in the olden days when all that was required was air changes, then there was no analysis, rational or not. Since no engineering was used to design it, then maybe all that can be done is to eyeball the change in use and decide if the use is a higher risk than the previous risk. More or less combustibles? More or less heat release rate?

I am not too worried about the kitchen. A rational analysts should show that any fire is sprinkler controlled, and that the real hazards are under hoods with a dedicated fire suppression system. Everything else should be stainless steel.
 
nitramnaed said:
Let me see if I understand what I have to do:Because this space was previously office and now we have a restaurant I have to show by "Rational Analysis" that the sprinkler system in conjunction with smoke control is adequate for a Ordinary Hazard Occupancy Group 1 NFPA 13). Correct?

If true, I have no clue, so it sounds like a job for a Fire Protection Engineer.
Click to expand...
So you are trying to turn an existing office space into a dining room?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top