• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Atrium Enclosure?

Bobbi_O

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
32
Location
New York
Hello all

I need a little help with this:

NYS 2015 code:
I am reviewing a 'B' occupancy with a 2 story atrium that connects the two stories and main corridor areas which is rated. The design currently does not enclose the atrium, just have a railing around the open side. So the 2 levels of corridors becomes one fire area. The opening in the floor is not large, although that does not apply here. BC Section 404 requires the atrium to be enclosed. The architect is using 404.5 Exception to not enclose the atrium, "connecting only 2 stories". However, Section 404.6 Exception 3, with the smoke control system, does not require the enclosure but does require the smoke control. This is a fully sprinklered building.

My interpretation does not link the Section 404.6 Exception 3 to 404.5 Exception since 405.5 doesn't mention enclosure. I am requiring the atrium to be enclosed. Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Thanks

§BC404.5 Smoke control.
A smoke control system shall be installed in accordance with Section BC909.
Exception: In other than Group I-2, and Group I-1, Condition 2, smoke
control is not required for atriums that connect only two stories.

§BC404.6 Enclosure of atriums:
3. A fire barrier is not required between the atrium and the
adjoining spaces of any three floors of the atrium provided such
spaces are accounted for in the design of the smoke control system.
 
Huh ....this is excellent information, although I still don't like the answer. I always forget to check the IBC interpretations but that is probably because of the new codes for us here in NYS

Thank you
Bobbi, I didn't know there was an interpretation until I saw it in the (2015) code commentary.
 
Back
Top