• 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

Ambulatory Care Facilities

fatboy

fatboy

Administrator
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,827
Location
Northern CO
We have a RDP that has submitted a plan that has four operating rooms and is proposing separating 2 off them with a two-hour wall, and 90 minute doors to keep them from having to sprinkler the floor as required by 422.4.

We aren't buying it, that it creates a "separate building".

What say you?
 
Nope.... It remains one occupancy.

And if they want separate buildings, only fire walls do that. Make sure and remind them what fire walls require (rating, structural independence, parapet and horizontal extension, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Okay, with the 2018 IBC, if the intent was to use a fire wall to create separate buildings, then refer to the modification made to Section 503.1 that clearly states fire walls are used for "the purposes of determining area limitations, height limitations and type of construction"; it is not intended to create separate buildings for other code application purposes. Thus, if the spaces separated by a fire wall are part of a single ambulatory care facility, then the sprinkler requirements of Section 903.2.2 apply. If the fire-rated walls are not fire walls, then the answer is even more definitive: not compliant with Sections 422.4 and 903.2.2.
 
steveray said:
As much as I agree.....I can't use a firewall to create separate fire areas? (Better than code?) That's a slippery slope.....
Click to expand...
A fire wall can be used to determine fire areas (refer to the definition of "fire area"). However, this is not a fire area issue. Unlike other requirements for fire sprinklers based on fire area, the sprinkler requirements for ambulatory care facilities are based on the number of care recipients incapable of self-preservation and location (i.e., above or below the level of exit discharge) of the ambulatory care facility.
 
But if you are creating separate buildings......such as pedestal or apartments that require a 13 system on one side but an R on the other, you can no longer do this?
 
steveray said:
But if you are creating separate buildings......such as pedestal or apartments that require a 13 system on one side but an R on the other, you can no longer do this?
Click to expand...
Huh? What does this have to do with ambulatory care facilities?
 
Why wouldn't the fire wall create two separate buildings with separate occupancy counts (number of people incapable of self-preservation)?

I would inquire about the concurrent number of people in a recovery room or waiting room who are incapable of self-preservation with patients in the operating rooms.
 
I don't want to derail the thread too far Ron, but kinda what Mech says....Separate buildings are separate buildings....You don't add one to the other for sprinkler requirements....
 
steveray said:
I don't want to derail the thread too far Ron, but kinda what Mech says....Separate buildings are separate buildings....You don't add one to the other for sprinkler requirements....
Click to expand...
Per the 2018 IBC, fire walls create separate buildings only for the purposes indicated--otherwise, it's a single building for all other code requirements. As for the "podium" situation, that is not a fire wall, so the modification made to the fire wall section would not apply to the horizontal separation allowance requirement of Section 510.2, but even that section stipulates the horizontal separation is limited to the purposes of "determining area limitations, continuity of fire walls, limitation of number of stories and type of construction"--for all other code requirements, it is a single building.
 
I have to agree with Steveray.... A fire wall would create separate buildings and provide (possibly) a horizontal exit.

The trouble is, that it must be an actual fire wall, which in my experience is unlikely. Fire wall would require 2-hr rating (Type II or V const.), 90min opening protectives, structural independence, horizontal continuity and parapet, etc.
 
Well, I do not like the world of fire walls, especially gypsum shaft liner types. Structural problems become a real issue. Basically you get two buildings capable of banging into each other in seismic areas. If water is available why would they, for this type of facility, want to avoid sprinklers.
 
linnrg said:
Well, I do not like the world of fire walls, especially gypsum shaft liner types. Structural problems become a real issue. Basically you get two buildings capable of banging into each other in seismic areas. If water is available why would they, for this type of facility, want to avoid sprinklers.
Click to expand...
$$$$$, that's why.

A fire wall sounds easy, but most folks don't wanna build them right and want to build a fire barrier instead.
 
So....In a zero lot line world.....If I want to build a new building adjacent to an existing one using a firewall and the new building requires sprinklers, I have to sprinkler the existing building(s) as well...?
 
steveray said:
So....In a zero lot line world.....If I want to build a new building adjacent to an existing one using a firewall and the new building requires sprinklers, I have to sprinkler the existing building(s) as well...?
Click to expand...
You don't use a fire wall for a zero lot line situation--you use an exterior wall with a 0-foot fire separation distance (i.e., fire-resistance-rated with no openings).

If you're referring to a party wall, then no openings are permitted unless the entire connected building complies with the new Exception #2 added in the 2018 IBC Section 706.1.1.

Section 706.1.1 states that a party wall creates separate buildings with no limitations on purpose. This is a more specific requirement than the general requirement in Section 503.1 that places a limitation on the purpose of a fire wall. Per Section 102.1, the more specific takes precedence over the general; thus, a party wall does create completely separate buildings.
 
Thanks for the discussion Ron! We will be on 2018 come this October and that is a significant change. In application maybe not so much, but I will really have to drill into that when it pops up.

2015
706.1 General. Each portion of a building separated by one
or more fire walls that comply with the provisions of this section
shall be considered a separate building.

2018
706.1 General. Fire walls shall be constructed in accordance
with Sections 706.2 through 706.11. The extent and location
of such fire walls shall provide a complete separation. Where
a fire wall separates occupancies that are required to be separated
by a fire barrier wall, the most restrictive requirements
of each separation shall apply.

706.1.1 Party walls. Any wall located on a lot line between
adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service
between the two buildings, shall be constructed as a fire wall
in accordance with Section 706. Party walls shall be constructed
without openings and shall create separate buildings.

I may start a separate thread about Ex. #2 because that just seems really weird as well....
 
I still might argue that 422.1 drives off of "occupancies" and those you can separate......;)

422.1 General. Occupancies classified as ambulatory care facilities shall comply with the provisions of Sections 422.1 through 422.6 and other applicable provisions of this code.

Depending on which side I was fighting for...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top