• 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 Smoke evacuation

R

Raymond Salfiti

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
5
Hello,

Can anyone tell me if a smoke evacuation system is required to be retrofitted in an existing mall where an atrium serves four levels? I got a bit confused when reading NFPA 101 requirements on atria
 
Raymond:

If you are in 101 there is no requirement for SEMS in an existing Atrium:

"In other than existing, previously approved atriums, where an engineered smoke control system is installed to meet the requirements of 8.6.7(5), the system is independently activated by each of the following: ............."

Have not looked at IBC yet today :)

Welcome to the forum!
 
Hello Raymond, and thanks for joining the forum.

I'm a bit confused. Is this an existing atrium in an existing multi-tenant building that has been legally permitted, inspected and occupied?

Was it originally constructed without smoke control?

What changes, if any, are being made to make you even consider retrofit?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome. NFPA 101 would require smoke control if an analysis shows that one is needed to maintian a tenable means of egress. IBC prescriptivle calls for smoke control. NFPA allows for an analysis, but smoke control would typically be required.
 
CD,

I respectfully disagree (for existing in 101) only based on:

"8.6.7* Atriums.

Unless prohibited by Chapters 11 through 43, an atrium shall be permitted, provided that the following conditions are met:

………………………….

(5)* For other than existing, previously approved atriums, an engineering analysis is performed that demonstrates that the building is designed to keep the smoke layer interface above the highest unprotected opening to adjoining spaces, or 6 ft (1830 mm) above the highest floor level of exit access open to the atrium, for a period equal to 1.5 times the calculated egress time or 20 minutes, whichever is greater."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FMWB - you made my point - "an engineering analysis". Like I previously said, smoke control would typically be required, yet 101 leave that very small window open.
 
Existing ones are already approved. They are adding an additonal floor which, under NFPA rules, would classify it as new.
 
I concur that for "new" one would be required if the analysis deemed as such however the OP asked for retrofitting requirements and there are none.

They are adding an additonal floor
Click to expand...
I didn't see that ????

I know it's Monday...besides that Chapter in 101 is dear to me dating back to 2003 ;)
 
Ya, would've been kind of nice to get that information in the original post, instead of just saying it was existing. Jesus Christ, what are we doing here, playing 'pin the tail on the donkey'?
 
It depends on the level of alteration whether or not the atrium needs to be upgraded to current codes. I would probably say yes.
 
Hello,

No, the mall was not originally designed to 101. The mall is not going any remodelling or additions either. It's just that the owners want to evaluate how in compliance to 101 the mall is 'as is'. I am doing the evaluation and need to judge whether the atrium is in violation since it does not have a smoke management system.
 
Hello,

The mall is not going any remodelling or additions either. It's just that the owners want to evaluate how in compliance to 101 the mall is 'as is'. I am doing the evaluation and need to judge whether the atrium is in violation since it does not have a smoke management system.
 
Raymond,

Thanks for the clarification and since the atrium is in existence and therefore as suspected received previous “approval” it would be in compliance with NFPA 101, 2009 [8.6.7 (1) (a)] unless somehow it was not previously approved by the AHJ historically.

8.6.7* Atriums.

Unless prohibited by Chapters 11 through 43, an atrium shall be permitted, provided that the following conditions are met:

(1) The atrium is separated from the adjacent spaces by fire barriers with not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating with opening protectives for corridor walls, unless one of the following is met:

If the atrium received previous approval in accordance with [8.6.7 (1) (a)] (one being met) all other conditions are moot.........IMHO
 
the owners want to evaluate how in compliance to 101 the mall is 'as is'.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

To evaluate if it currently meets 2009 NFPA 101, you need to review Ch. 37 Existing Mercantile Occupancies. Yes, 37.3.1 allows any vertical opening protection allowed in 8.6, and 8.6 permits no separations and no smoke control for "existing, previously approved atriums"; but don't forget the special provisions specifically for Malls in 37.4.4. If the egress travel distance exceeds the max for any of the occupancies served by the mall common area, it is allowed to be increased an additional 200 ft if (among other things) "Malls with a floor opening connecting more than two levels shall be provided with a smoke control system.". So it is possible that this "open to above" area may need smoke control, not because it is an atrium, but because max travel distance is otherwise exceeded.

Existing ones are already approved.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, I suppose. I agree that if the original building "got away without" smoke control, none is needed now. IMHO, "existing, previously approved atriums" is a pretty weak statement, and fairly unique to the codes. In most other code topics, it always goes back to "code in effect at the time". Usually, if the code officials missed something required by the code in effect under the original permit, it is "oops my bad, but you have to retrofit" the next time around. Here, if Radar O'Rielly slipped a CO into a pile of paper, and CBO Blake signed it, the atrium will never be required to have smoke control.
 
It's not a lot clearer in IMC; the owner's insurance company is probably asking. If it's existing and no upgrades have been required, it's probably ok the way it is. When the area is small enough, we're starting to see more and more structural glass floors to break them into 2 floor chunks.
 
I thank you all for your inputs. What I left out from my story, is the fact that the mall is in the middle east (Beirut) where there is really no AHJ per se. So when the mall was built seven years ago, the atrium - without the smoke management system - was not approved (nor disapproved) by anyone since an AHJ's approval was not required. Today, the owners are seeking the approval of a private inspection firm (probably to look good for insurance purposes). The private firm decided to use as a reference NFPA 101 and wrote a list of remarks against certain dispositions in the mall - one of which is the atrium. As the owner's engineer, I am making modifications to clear up some of the remarks and debating those remarks that I think are not applicable and should not have been made in the first place. Hence comes the question of the atrium. I know this is a mind blower kind of like the chicken and the egg.

By the way, does anyone know how to get official answers and/or assessments on particular building situations that revolve around NFPA 101 or other NFPA codes? I tried the NFPA site before but I was not able to find a friendly/straight to the point, code interpretation section...
 
Raymond,



I have not run across any formal interpretations given by NFPA regarding this specific query but if you or your firm are members of NFPA, contact them directly 1- 800-344-3555 with your membership number and ask for technical assistance in NFPA 101 regarding their interpretation for existing atriums in existing mercantile occupancies.

How many stories is the mall?

What are the travel distance issues?

Is the mall sprinkled?
 
Raymond, thanks for the clarification.

If I was the engineer writing a due dilligence report, I would simply state that since the mall was not previously reviewed and approved under NFPA 101, the mall is not in compliance with NFPA 101.

The only way this mall will "meet NFPA 101" is through a technicality, either through an interpretation from NFPA (unlikely - they always include a "local AHJ has final say" statement), or by somehow determining this was "previously approved".
 
Knowing the layout of the mall would also be benificial since a two story with allowable separations of the atria and no egress capacity or travel distance limitations and sprinkled would have met 101 when built and not have required engineered SMS and that is how it should have been interpreted and still would be in this country regardless.

My argument is not of "previously approved" or the lack of an AHJ's ability, it's a matter if the mall conditions were met with separation, egress etc. the option of having to do an engineering analysis would be moot or if they want to gain an increase in travel distance then the existing provisions if 37.4.4.2.2 or earlier edition would apply. I support smoke management in conditions where necessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's kind of "is what it is"... I deal with building weekly that were constructed before the building codes. If they are looking for code compliance (it isn't), effective (pretty, but probably not), or safe (there's a reason the atrium provisions were put in the codes - probably not).

I don't know that I'd look for NFPA to make an interpretation; smoke control provisions are included in IBC, IFC, IMC.. so ICC is where you may want to look for an interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top