RLGA
SAWHORSE
As some of you are aware, the 2009 IBC deleted the exit width reduction when a building is sprinklered throughout. The proposed change to do so during the 07/08 code development cycle received several comments opposing the deletion. However, it was approved anyway for the 2009 IBC.
However, in the 2012 IBC, we see that the reduced exit width factors are back. Change proposal E22 of the 09/10 code development cycle proposed a modification to Section 1005. It was placed on the agenda for consideration during the final action hearings since a comment was received that proposed a significant change, which essentially became what is now in the 2012 IBC with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions were the "Exceptions" that were added that allowed a reduced exit width factor for the installation of a sprinkler system throughout and an emergency voice/alarm communication system.
My question is this: How did the exceptions get added to the proposed change? Was anyone in attendance that could enlighten me as to the discussion that led to the inclusion of the reduced width factors?
I agree with the reduced width factors, but I have a jurisdiction that has adopted the 2009 and is unwilling to accept a code modification to accept a condition that was in the previous IBC (2006) and is again in the current IBC (2012). They said there must have been a reason for deleting the reduced width factors and an even better reason for putting it back in.
Supposedly, "stupidity" and "logic," respectively, aren't good enough reasons.
Thanks...
However, in the 2012 IBC, we see that the reduced exit width factors are back. Change proposal E22 of the 09/10 code development cycle proposed a modification to Section 1005. It was placed on the agenda for consideration during the final action hearings since a comment was received that proposed a significant change, which essentially became what is now in the 2012 IBC with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions were the "Exceptions" that were added that allowed a reduced exit width factor for the installation of a sprinkler system throughout and an emergency voice/alarm communication system.
My question is this: How did the exceptions get added to the proposed change? Was anyone in attendance that could enlighten me as to the discussion that led to the inclusion of the reduced width factors?
I agree with the reduced width factors, but I have a jurisdiction that has adopted the 2009 and is unwilling to accept a code modification to accept a condition that was in the previous IBC (2006) and is again in the current IBC (2012). They said there must have been a reason for deleting the reduced width factors and an even better reason for putting it back in.
Supposedly, "stupidity" and "logic," respectively, aren't good enough reasons.
Thanks...
Last edited by a moderator:
