Hoistway Opening Protection on Level of Exit Discharge for Rated Corridors

[gndoming]

Which is correct, #1 or #2?

Seems like #2 should be the correct answer, but 3006.2.1 is a subsection meaning it would not be applicable if 3006.2 Exception 2 is met. To further confuse matters, IBC 1020.1.1 Commentary references IBC 3006.2 Exception 2 leading me to believe #1 is correct.

 

[RLGA]

I agree with you that Section 3006.2.1 would take precedence. Subsections do not necessarily require compliance with the parent section to be applicable. Section 3006.2.1 was added in the 2018 IBC, so I will need to see the reason statement to determine the intent. The Commentary is of no help on this matter.

 

[Sifu]

Old thread, but short so maybe I can revive it a little. Has any more thought been given or clarification of this question provided? I have the reason statement, but it is of no help. My thinking is that 3006.2.1 is stand alone and has no exceptions, though I don't know if that is the intent. But since I have a DP arguing this, I would love more input.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

If 3006.2 does not apply, since 3006.2.1 is a sub-section under 3006.2 you have no path to get to 3006.2.1. It does not apply.

Courts have ruled that building codes must be interpreted to mean what their language says. A number of years ago my state made an error in their amendments when they adopted a new code cycle. Two projects -- involving two different owners, two different code consultants, and in two different muncipalities -- submitted projects using the code as written and as adopted. The state building inspector tried to issue a written opinion that said the opposite of what the code actually said -- based on the fact that he had intended to say something else. His department's own attorney slapped him on the wrist and told him he can't interpret the code to mean the opposite of what it says.

 

[Sifu]

If 3006.2 does not apply, since 3006.2.1 is a sub-section under 3006.2 you have no path to get to 3006.2.1. It does not apply.

I think we are on the same page here....If my interpretation of your answer is correct in that I have no path to get back to 3006.2 exc, #2 once it is determined that 3006.2.1 applies?

 

[Sifu]

I heeded some advice and checked the '24 IBC, which has maybe clarified the issue. In the '24 IBC, 1020.1 now points to 3006.2, which now contains the rated corridor provision. And since 3006.2 contains the exception for level of exit discharge I think we could utilize the exception in the '24.

Now, for the other news:

In researching the '24 change I saw lots of proposals the sought to eliminate the requirement for 3 story buildings or less even when in a rated corridor. I am not very good at deciphering the various iterations of the proposals and votes but it doesn't look like that succeeded because 3006.2.1 is still in the code. So the result is a new condition was added to 3006.2 that says you don't need to do it and 3006.2.1 then says you do. Color me still confused, but since the corridor provision is now in 3006.2, and the exception for the level of exit discharge is in 3006.2, I am surmising that in a 3 story building or less the level of exit discharge does not require hoistway protection but that levels 2 & 3 does require protection. Until it changes again.

This seems like such a mess.