• 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.

Egress Issue - Assembly Area

indyarchyguy

indyarchyguy

SAWHORSE
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
134
Location
United States
Working on a project involving side by side 11 story buildings of Type IA construction with full sprinkler. The tenant on second floor (building on the left) is expanding to adjacent building via a sky bridge. The tenant wants to have a main entry door off the main corridor from the elevators. The space itself is an A-3 occupancy due to the tenant training room needs. A 1-hour wall assembly has been constructed between the A-3 and the existing B-Occupancy that has not been built-out. We have offered the egress through the bridge connector towards the building on the left via a 1-hour rated door/wall assembly. A second fire egress door has been provided via extended corridor in order to provide the required distance between two means of egress. Fire egress signage has been provided.

I have been informed while we meet the requirements of the code, that because the main entry door is near the egress door leading down the corridor, it is too close and they are indicating this does not meet code...even though we have provided the distance and required separation between the occupancies. Any thoughts? This is in Indiana where we use the 2014 Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC with amendments). Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you.


m2CcW8N
 
Wow a little busy going on.

Even before the remodel, seems like the two stair ways in the right building are a little close.

Yea I can see the concern for what you are proposing.

Trying to figure you picture out, is there three exits out of the room 203 or more???
 
indyarchyguy said:
Working on a project involving side by side 11 story buildings of Type IA construction with full sprinkler. The tenant on second floor (building on the left) is expanding to adjacent building via a sky bridge. The tenant wants to have a main entry door off the main corridor from the elevators. The space itself is an A-3 occupancy due to the tenant training room needs. A 1-hour wall assembly has been constructed between the A-3 and the existing B-Occupancy that has not been built-out. We have offered the egress through the bridge connector towards the building on the left via a 1-hour rated door/wall assembly. A second fire egress door has been provided via extended corridor in order to provide the required distance between two means of egress. Fire egress signage has been provided.

I have been informed while we meet the requirements of the code, that because the main entry door is near the egress door leading down the corridor, it is too close and they are indicating this does not meet code...even though we have provided the distance and required separation between the occupancies. Any thoughts? This is in Indiana where we use the 2014 Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC with amendments). Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you.


m2CcW8N
Click to expand...



So what code section did they cite, saying your set up does not meet code????
 
cda said:
Wow a little busy going on.

Even before the remodel, seems like the two stair ways in the right building are a little close.

Yea I can see the concern for what you are proposing.

Trying to figure you picture out, is there three exits out of the room 203 or more???
Click to expand...

There are two. The issues are the doors leading out of 207 and 201.
 
cda said:
So what code section did they cite, saying your set up does not meet code????
Click to expand...

They didn’t. They said they agree the two doors leading out of 207 and the one on to the bridge are separated appropriately...but they are saying the main entry door makes it too convoluted. I disagree as I say I’ve met the intent of the code.
 
indyarchyguy said:
They didn’t. They said they agree the two doors leading out of 207 and the one on to the bridge are separated appropriately...but they are saying the main entry door makes it too convoluted. I disagree as I say I’ve met the intent of the code.
Click to expand...


If they cannot cite a code section

Sounds like they need to get the stamp out and approve it
 
No exactly an answer to your question, but if this is a type 1A building (unlimited area) why are you providing a 1 hour tenant separation between occupancies? Can't the entire building be classified as non separated mixed use?
 
Remoteness = 1/2 distance of the diagonal of the building or space in non sprinkled, 1/3 in sprinkled.

your building seems short of the 1/3 reequipment to start.
 
TheCommish said:
Remoteness = 1/2 distance of the diagonal of the building or space in non sprinkled, 1/3 in sprinkled.

your building seems short of the 1/3 reequipment to start.
Click to expand...

1/3 of the tenant space...we have met that requirement. That is not in question. Again, they have come back with the statement that even though we have met the requirement, the main entry door is too close to the door heading east down the bridge corridor. They did not cite any code deficiency, just in their opinion it is "too convoluted" in their opinion. I disagree...
 
Tim Mailloux said:
No exactly an answer to your question, but if this is a type 1A building (unlimited area) why are you providing a 1 hour tenant separation between occupancies? Can't the entire building be classified as non separated mixed use?
Click to expand...

I provided the 1-hour separation to help separate the egress that runs from east to west...a separation to help with providing 2 means of egress out of the A-3. That way I have protected those utilizing the egress from each other. Perhaps a belts and suspenders approach, but I figured it would alleviate the issue of the proximity of each means of egress.
 
Are they concerned that people will go across the bridge instead of down the exit stair? Is the hallway from the bridge to the stairs in the other building opened at all times?
 
Paul Sweet said:
Are they concerned that people will go across the bridge instead of down the exit stair? Is the hallway from the bridge to the stairs in the other building opened at all times?
Click to expand...

They think that too many people will be congested in the corner. The bridge corridor is open all the time and will be used daily by people travelling between one building to the other for the same tenant. It is not used by other tenants of the building. And yes, the hallway in the other building is open at all times.
 
To all. Met with plan review. I was informed that I was correct and did meet the code. They did not like the congestion issue, but since I did have two means of egress and separated the corridors, they agreed. Thank you for the input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top