• 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.

Posting Occupant Load to Avoid Panic Hardware

LGreene

LGreene

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,165
Location
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
Many times I have seen an occupant load posted at 49 people. I guess that could be the calculated occupant load, but in some cases I have seen that occupant load posted in order to avoid a second exit, outswinging doors, and/or panic hardware.

I looked in the IBC Commentary for something that I could use to show that this practice is not acceptable, but I haven't found what I'm looking for yet. What are your thoughts on this issue? Is there any code or commentary language that I can point to?
 
1004.1.2 Areas without fixed seating.
The number of occupants shall be computed at the rate of one occupant per unit of area as prescribed in Table 1004.1.2. For areas without fixed seating, the occupant load shall not be less than that number determined by dividing the floor area under consideration by the occupant load factor assigned to the function of the space as set forth in Table 1004.1.2. Where an intended function is not listed in Table 1004.1.2, the building official shall establish a function based on a listed function that most nearly resembles the intended function.

Exception: Where approved by the building official, the actual number of occupants for whom each occupied space, floor or building is designed, although less than those determined by calculation, shall be permitted to be used in the determination of the design occupant load.
 
Not very often, but I've done it when it is within one or two occupants, the exception in 1004.1.2 allows it.
 
Designer can't pencil it down...But the funny thing is, you can't really require it to be posted at 49 either....

1004.3 Posting of occupant load. Every room or space that
is an assembly occupancy shall have the occupant load of the
room or space posted in a conspicuous place, near the main
exit or exit access doorway from the room or space. Posted
signs shall be of an approved legible permanent design and
shall be maintained by the owner or authorized agent.


If it is 49, then it is not "assembly"
 
It may be the occupancy class under Group-A, exception 1. that allows the occupancy under 50 to remain a "B" occupancy. Small restaurants tend to fall in this category. I see a lot of restaurants under 100 trying to avoid the fire sprinkler requirement. $$$
 
IBC 2006 Table 1019.2 and IBC 2012 Table 1021.2 (2) aA,B,E,F,M, and U, travel distance to an exit (49 occupants and 75 feet travel distance). Has to do with it I suspect.
 
mtlogcabin said:
1004.1.2 Areas without fixed seating.
The number of occupants shall be computed at the rate of one occupant per unit of area as prescribed in Table 1004.1.2. For areas without fixed seating, the occupant load shall not be less than that number determined by dividing the floor area under consideration by the occupant load factor assigned to the function of the space as set forth in Table 1004.1.2. Where an intended function is not listed in Table 1004.1.2, the building official shall establish a function based on a listed function that most nearly resembles the intended function.

Exception: Where approved by the building official, the actual number of occupants for whom each occupied space, floor or building is designed, although less than those determined by calculation, shall be permitted to be used in the determination of the design occupant load.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I saw this but I was hoping for something that I could reference beyond saying that it has to be approved by the building official. In the current situation I'm working on, it's a residential building with a roof terrace that's about 2600 square feet, connected to a lounge that is about 1300 square feet. You have to pass through the lounge to exit from the roof terrace. The lounge has one pair of doors leading to the exit access corridor.
 
Last edited:
This practices, while acceptable under the code, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the implications by all parties involved. When I as an official accept a lesser occupant load than indicated by code, there is some liability that goes with it. The amount of liability is usually directly proportional to how "common sense" the posted occupant load is. I, and I would assume most here, have had scenarios where there is no way the building would come near the posted occupancy load. In other situations, the design professional is proposing it simply to reduce code requirements. In the latter case there is a fair amount of liability on the official. A good way to mitigate this is to simply ask the questions of how the maximum occupant load will be enforced. Is someone going to be able to do a head count of the building? Can they keep track of occupants coming and going? Are they really going to turn people away at the door? The design professional should already have the answers to these questions if they are doing their job and this is a legitimate reduction. If they can't answer these questions right away, they just want the lesser code requirements and placing a burden on the owner without their knowledge.
 
LGreene said:
Thanks - I saw this but I was hoping for something that I could reference beyond saying that it has to be approved by the building official. In the current situation I'm working on, it's a residential building with a roof terrace that's about 2600 square feet, connected to a lounge that is about 1300 square feet. You have to pass through the lounge to exit from the roof terrace. The lounge has one pair of doors leading to the exit access corridor.
Click to expand...


Existing building or proposed ??

Seems like, depending on the layout of the lounge, the lounge alone should have two exits,

And not sure a building offical would approve a 49 occupant load
 
tmurray said:
This practices, while acceptable under the code, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the implications by all parties involved. When I as an official accept a lesser occupant load than indicated by code, there is some liability that goes with it. The amount of liability is usually directly proportional to how "common sense" the posted occupant load is. I, and I would assume most here, have had scenarios where there is no way the building would come near the posted occupancy load. In other situations, the design professional is proposing it simply to reduce code requirements. In the latter case there is a fair amount of liability on the official. A good way to mitigate this is to simply ask the questions of how the maximum occupant load will be enforced. Is someone going to be able to do a head count of the building? Can they keep track of occupants coming and going? Are they really going to turn people away at the door? The design professional should already have the answers to these questions if they are doing their job and this is a legitimate reduction. If they can't answer these questions right away, they just want the lesser code requirements and placing a burden on the owner without their knowledge.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm not an AHJ but I agree completely. This building has about 3900 square feet of roof terrace (exterior) and lounge space (interior), plus a fitness center and a kitchen that both have egress doors leading to the lounge. It just doesn't seem like posting 49 occupants for the whole thing would fly.
 
LGreene said:
Thanks! I'm not an AHJ but I agree completely. This building has about 3900 square feet of roof terrace (exterior) and lounge space (interior), plus a fitness center and a kitchen that both have egress doors leading to the lounge. It just doesn't seem like posting 49 occupants for the whole thing would fly.
Click to expand...

There is no way I would ever accept that occupant load for that space.

I agree with tmurray, by accepting/agreeing to a lesser occupant load, the building official puts themselves in a position of liability. That's why I will only agree to exceeding by a person or two, maybe three max, if conditions warrant.
 
The design professional has some leeway, but in this example the space is much too large.

I'm giving it extra scrutiny if the net assembly area is over 750 SF (50 occ x 15 SF/occ = 750 SF)
 
1004.3 Posting of occupant load.
Every room or space that is an assembly occupancy shall have the room or space posted.
Would this space meet this criteria? And does the CO list the building with a larger total OL?

IBC2012 Table 1004.1.2
(1300sf/15gross=86.6 for an assembly "A" occupancy with concentrated tables and chairs)
1004.4 Fixed seating, different calcs. used.

Curious how the arrived at the OC?
 
Are both uses on the same level (as in above grade?) if so, then how are they exiting to grade? Two staircases only, area of refuge for disabled? No wheelchair access to second floor?
 
ADAguy said:
Are both uses on the same level (as in above grade?) if so, then how are they exiting to grade? Two staircases only, area of refuge for disabled? No wheelchair access to second floor?
Click to expand...

Yes - both the roof terrace and the lounge are on the same level (the 8th floor), along with a fitness center, a kitchen associated with the lounge, a leasing office, and 4 dwelling units. There are 2 exit stairwells and 2 elevators.
 
"""The lounge has one pair of doors leading to the exit access corridor.""


1. So on that floor there are two code compliant exits.

2. The question seems to be should the lounge have two exits to the corridor????


3. I would say somehow, that entire area does need two means to get to the corridor. It could be another path without going through the lounge. Just depends on what they have to play with, to be able to provide the two means.
 
From the roof terrace (2600 SF), there are doors to the lounge and the fitness room - both doors swing out to the roof terrace, so if the occupant load of the terrace is >49, the swing will have to change. I doubt the building owner will want the roof terrace occupants to have access to the fitness room, but putting that aside for a minute, as an AHJ would you allow the two means of egress for the roof terrace to pass through the lounge and the fitness room?
 
LGreene said:
From the roof terrace (2600 SF), there are doors to the lounge and the fitness room - both doors swing out to the roof terrace, so if the occupant load of the terrace is >49, the swing will have to change. I doubt the building owner will want the roof terrace occupants to have access to the fitness room, but putting that aside for a minute, as an AHJ would you allow the two means of egress for the roof terrace to pass through the lounge and the fitness room?
Click to expand...



I am thinking no unless there is code required separation.

Plus it sounds like the entire exiting needs to be re thought, so it all meets code.

Without a floor plan, hard to give a good answer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top