• 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 travel distance compliance alternative

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,945
Location
Not where I really want to be
I have a 1.2 million square foot s1 with a small b section. It is brand new and I am involved for the first time for a fit out as a company will occupy part of the facility. I was not here for the initial build of the structure. Most of the exit access travel distances are from 350' to 396'. Section 1016.2 does not apply as the vents are not installed.

I have a report from an engineering firm requesting approval via compliance alternative IBC 104.11. In PA, we did not adopt Chapter 1 but that is another issue.

Anyway, the premise of the alternative to meet the "intent" of the code is that both the large volume of airspace within the facility along with ESFR sprinklers are sufficient. They are stating that the NFPRF and FM have concluded that smoke and heat vents are not cost effective and have an adverse effect on the effect of sprinkler systems.

I am providing you with a basic overview. The submission for Means of Egress Analysis includes timed egress calculations and a comparison analysis of heat release rate and clear height.

I will also post this in the fire section for more responses.

Anyone have any experience with this?
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

I do....2.6 million s.f. major retail distribution center. However I was told that I was the first fire authority to ever be involved in the planning meetings and process from footings to acceptance in all their 47 previous ones nationally (at the time back in 2000) :lol:

The corp. did send a very nice letter to our City Admin addrerssing how pleased they were with our involvment and abilities to address these problimatic types of difficult compliance issues.

You may also want to PM "Insurance Engineer" since he has been through many similar type faciliites and will have good insight too.

There is some great information available in Annex C of NFPA 13 and in the Annex's of NFPA 30B regarding the full scale testing that may be of use to you in understanding the reporting you will receive.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

Jeff: FM is correct on the info in NFPA 13. I have been looking for a report I had a few years back which I can't seem to find. The increase being ask for is a judgment call.

What is the space to be used for? How many people will occupy the space? Is there high rack storage? Ie: If this is a tire warehouse maybe not! Alot of if's exist here.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

It is racking with high pile storage for a warehouse. I am not the BCO, just doing plan review. I let the BCO know that it is his call whether or not to accept. I have reviewed the documentation and think it makes sense and meets the intent in my opinion. Most of the order picking will be with a KIVA system which is automatic robotics. Not many people in the rack storage areas anyway.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

are they providing all the required firefighter access points???
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

Jeff,

A couple of the things we concentrated on due to the nature of the travel distance once in the middle of the “combined” warehouse’s and flow through racks was the alarm notification appliance output above ambient; rated wall protection openings for conveyers with redundant safety engineering for closure failure potentials; increased emergency lighting, directional exit signage; floor proximity egress path marking; rack pallet stops to maintain flue spaces; rack sprinklers and protection (where applicable); ventilation controls at the loss prevention command center for manual fire command operation; additional 90 minute water supply storage tank; back up fire pump and hose stream supply hydrants on the interior loop outside the collapse zone.

Despite the complete automated operations ours has, they still employ >400 and have 150 throughout at most times with exception to the 3rd shift where it goes to 75 occupants.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

Yes, every 100' and there is complete access to the building on all sides.

Thanks for the reference. I was searching "firefighter", not "fire department" which explains why I could not find it on the PDF search
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

Jeff: As you know the IFC is not adopted in PA, but you can use it for reference in this application.

Alarm notification is critical as FM points out.

I would also look at IFC 1027.17.2 Travel distance! This will give you a conservative base point to start with while reviewing the suggested changes proposed.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

You could allow listed skylights that melt and drop out at about 500ºF, they won't interfere with the sprinklers and will provide venting if the sh** hits the fan. In my previous jurisdiction we liked that option. I think its an FM thing if I recall.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

Jeff, If you have an issue/concern with the design, there is an option to request a peer review. From what you've said about the material submitted, the firm is a probably fire protection engineering one (I know the type, since we "am" one). The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) in conjunction with the ICC have put together a guide for review of these types of alternate design submissions. One of the best points is the peer review.

Have another fire protection engineer review the submission and offer comments. Sometimes there are only format comments. Sometime the second set of eyes catches something important. As it is similar to a special inspection, the owner needs to pay for the outside assistance. We've done this on a number of projects - both as the submitter and also as the peer reviewer. It works.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

Gene Boecker said:
Jeff, If you have an issue/concern with the design, there is an option to request a peer review. From what you've said about the material submitted, the firm is a probably fire protection engineering one (I know the type, since we "am" one). The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) in conjunction with the ICC have put together a guide for review of these types of alternate design submissions. One of the best points is the peer review. Have another fire protection engineer review the submission and offer comments. Sometimes there are only format comments. Sometime the second set of eyes catches something important. As it is similar to a special inspection, the owner needs to pay for the outside assistance. We've done this on a number of projects - both as the submitter and also as the peer reviewer. It works.
Click to expand...
Another excellent idea. Make sure the FPE or firm is one you choose.
 
Re: Egress travel distance compliance alternative

Yes! I agree with Gene! That's a part of this BB that is great. Views form others and advise so one is not alone in the process.

ps: Jeff this is a great topic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top