422 Ambulatory Health Care Facilities ICC vs NFPA

[100eyeballs]

2009 IBC came out with a new use group 422 Ambulatory Health Care Facilities as a subset of B Occupancy. This addition is similarly mirrored in NFPA 101 Chapter 20 Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies.

In putting these facilities in a building with other medical "Outpatient Clinics" (see new definition 304.1.1) NFPA requires a 1-hour rated separation from other building occupants (since it's not B in NFPA), where IBC would not since it's all B - correct me if I'm wrong.

Both codes require that facilities larger than 10,000 sf be separated into smoke compartments. NFPA clearly states sizes are limited to 22,500 sf (20.3.7.3) but IBC's text is silent. However the IBC commentary goes on to state that 10,000 sf is the maximum size of a smoke compartment. Question: Where the IBC code is silent and the commentary conflicts with NFPA's code language - the IBC commentary can be disregarded and is not enforceable, correct? It looks like the State of Washington modified the section to the 22,500 sf when adopting.

The NFPA 20.3.7.2 (3) states: An area in an adjoining occupancy shall be permitted to serve as a smoke compartment for an ambulatory health care facility if the following criteria are met: (a) separating wall and both compartments meet the requirements of 20.3.7. (b) The ambulatory health care facility is less than 22,500 sf. © Access from the ambulatory health care facility to the other occupancy is unrestricted.

This language is not carried over in IBC. If meeting the requirements of NFPA, would the IBC AHJ allow taking refuge in adjoining spaces outside the separated AHCF?

 

[Codegeek]

The 2012 cleaned up some of that lack in language and now requires a fire partition to separate adjacent spaces and tenants. It also states that the area of any one smoke compartment cannot exceed 22,500 square feet.

Not sure if this helps you any, but it appears to have been changed to be like NFPA.

 

[Architect1281]

Welcome to the wide world of Uniform Codes and why the ONE SOURCE CODE FAILED (NFPA was supposed to join the ICC n others merger)

so you have the ICC which has the worst ever Fire Code and the NFPA which has the worst ever code considerations of COnstruction (Building)

Issues. proving once again it's not about getting it right its about sales.

 

[100eyeballs]

Not sure if this is addressed in 2012-

When putting a 422 AHCF on the same floor of an outpatient building with other Business - Outpatient Clinics, is there are required fire rated separation by IBC?

It appears not since it's a B-B occupancy, just with different sub-groups.

In NFPA it does require a 1-hour fire rated separation between B and AHCF, since NFPA treats them as two different occupancies. Both codes require the AHCF to be subdivided into two smoke compartments with a 1-hour rated smoke barrier (8.5 in NFPA) (710 in IBC). So the wall that divides the AHCF into two smoke compartments requires smoke dampers (fire damper not required in 1-hour wall) and the wall separating the AHCF from surrounding construction does not require any dampers. Correct?

 

[Codegeek]

The 2012 requires separation from the AHCF from adjacent spaces with a fire partition if the potential for four or more care recipients are to be incapable of self-preservation at any time.

As far as your question on the dampers, a fire damper would not be required in the fire partition provided the duct is not less than 26 gage. The smoke damper would not be required in the smoke barrier if there is only one smoke compartment being provided. I'm not sure how many square feet you're dealing with, so I'm not sure if you have more than one smoke compartment.

 

[JustReid]

Question: Where the IBC code is silent and the commentary conflicts with NFPA's code language - the IBC commentary can be disregarded and is not enforceable, correct?

I normally rely pretty heavily on the recommendations in the commentary to support positions; but, like Codegeek mentioned, much of the language in the 2012 edition has been changed to match NFPA including the 22,500 sf max size limitation. So it is seems that the since the older edition was silent (in the body of the code) and the new one is explicit, you could use that to justify using the 22,500 sf for the old and disgregard the commentary.

 

[atomahutna]

Welcome to the wide world of Uniform Codes and why the ONE SOURCE CODE FAILED (NFPA was supposed to join the ICC n others merger)so you have the ICC which has the worst ever Fire Code

You've sure got that right!

 

[AegisFPE]

Seattle amendments in their 2009 code add provisions for fire partitions even where smoke barriers may not be required by the base code.

 

[Architect1281]

And non other than the NFPA 5000 maybe by that year (5000) they can get building construction right