• 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.

ICC Performance Code questions.

pyrguy

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
472
Location
Casa Grande, AZ
First we are using the 2012 I codes with no majoramendments.

OK, I have an extremely large building about 900 X1800 feet containing non-separated mixed used. It is mostly mercantile (Approximately 850 k sqft) with some A-2 (restaurants 5K sqft and a food court 24k sqft), S-2 about 57k sqft and a 68k sqft A-3. The mercantile area does not count any of the corridors as they were left out of the calculations done by the designers.

Originally this building was being built as construction type I-A and a mix of seperated and non-separated uses basically complying with the 2012 IBC except for travel distances. Modeling was being done to show adequate egress time for all occupants to leave the building in a fire event.

A new desgn/build firm has come on board and they are proposing to build this as an unimited area covered mall building of type II-B construction without complying with section 402 (no tenant seperations, occupancy seperations and the A-3 occupancy in the middle of the building).

I need your learned (or unlearned) opinions on this.

Can it be done. If so, how can it be done.
 
Do they want to redo the modeling with the new construction type and see if it meet the requirements?

do they want you to design it? Really they should be showing you the code summary page and exiting plan for the proposed project defining how it meets all the code requirements.
 
This is a redesign. Everything has changed from the original submittal. Even the building area sqft has changed.

They are just wanting to show exiting and anticipated roof structure temperature. Then call it good?
 
When in doubt, read the definitions...

COVERED MALL BUILDING. A single building enclosing a number of tenants and occupants, such as retail stores, drinking and dining establishments, entertainment and amusement facilities, passenger transportation terminals, offices and other similar uses wherein two or more tenants have a main entrance into one or more malls. Anchor buildings shall not be considered as a part of the covered mall building. The term "covered mall building" shall include open mall buildings as defined below.

Mall. A roofed or covered common pedestrian area within a covered mall building that serves as access for two or more tenants and not to exceed three levels that are open to each other. The term "mall" shall include open malls as defined below.Open mall. An unroofed common pedestrian way serving a number of tenants not exceeding three levels. Circulation at levels above grade shall be permitted to include open exterior balconies leading to exits discharging at grade.Open mall building. Several structures housing a number of tenants, such as retail stores, drinking and dining establishments, entertainment and amusement facilities, offices, and other similar uses, wherein two or more tenants have a main entrance into one or more open malls. Anchor buildings are not considered as a part of the open mall building.
 
Just found out something else. They want to sell the units as condo's.

Again other than a big building with spaces for occupants opening unto big corridors they will not (do not want) to meet any of section 402.

No anchor buildings but they are not required to be a covered mall building. The definitions are a help but...

Every time it comes back for discussion everything changes.
 


They are just wanting to show exiting and anticipated roof structure temperature. Then call it good?
The bottom line is that the BO has the authority [104.11] to accept PBD/Alternative methods and what they are proposing seems a bit lax for modeling and they can still maintain very basic separations through 402/708. Remember the BO has to be comfortable with their meeting “fire resistance” which is one of the parameters in [104.11] for acceptance. Personally, I would request their code analysis for their rationale on not wanting to follow 402. Junk data/science in on modeling equals junk data/science out and it’s not just about roof temperatures and exiting…...there is far more areas to address concerning thermal dynamics and sprinkler design performances in computer modeling.
 
Back
Top