• 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.

smoke barriers and partitions

Areas of refuge in 1007

Correctional I-3 in Section 408

Underground buildings in 405

these three immediately come to mind
 
I agree with you Cougdad

2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE Sections 407.4 and 408.6 identify where smoke barriers are required. Also, smoke barriers may be utilized in other applications, such as part of a smoke control system (see Section 909.5) and accessible means of egress (see Section 1007.6.2), accessible areas of refuge (see Section 1007.6), compartmentation of underground buildings (see Section 405.4.2) and elevator lobbies in underground buildings (see Section 405.4.3).
 
407.3 Corridor walls.

708.14.1 Elevator lobby. exception 5

405.4.3 Elevators

407.4 Smoke barriers I-2

422.2 Smoke barriers.

3008.11.2 Lobby enclosure.

I love I-Quest
 
Thanks for the responses. You guy's are awesome. I should have mentioned that we use the 2006 IBC.

The reason that I brougt it up is that I have an applicant who wants to use a suspended acoustical ceiling as the membrane "constructed to limit the tranfer of smoke" as in Section 710.4 so that he would not have to extend the smoke partition to the underside of the roof. I am not buying it.

This is in a high school corridor which is not required to be fire rated per Table 1017.1 because it protected with a sprnkler

system.

I am not sure why he is calling for smoke partitions. This is what prompted my question. Must be a State requirement, I dont't know.

Thanks again,

GPE
 
Probably a Department of Education requirement in their School Construction Manual. Our State Department of Education just dropped all their extra stuff regarding building construction/life safety and now go by the requirements of the local code (AHJ).

Ask the DP who is requiring the smoke barriers?
 
Unless the State requirements have changed in the last couple of years the State Department of Education uses the Georgia State Minimum Standard Codes.

I have run into school contractors trying to do crazy things by saying the board of education requires it. Though they usually were trying to do less than code minimums.
 
Ok. I found it. (Actually my co-worker found it.)

Section 14.3.6 of the Life Safety Code (2000) requires smoke partitions in sprinklerd "E" occupancy corridors as an alternative to the 1-hour rating.

The LSC also goes into some specifics about the ceiling membrane construction where the smoke partitions do not extend all the way up in Section 8.2.4.2. Definitly would not allow a suspended acoustical ceiling.

In Georgia, the Fire Marshal's office enforces the Life Safety Code and the applicant goes throught thier plan review before submittal to the Building Department.

As this project is still in the planning stages and has not yet been submitted, I advised the DP to contact the Fire Marshal's office.

Whew!!

Thanks all, and thank you Steve.

GPE
 
I lived in a state that had two codes; BOCA and Life Safety. The law read, whichever is the most stringent applies. Typical cop out for the law makers. Both agencies, the building official and fire marshal, had equal power. Too many conflicts using two different codes. It took the state legislators, after much complaining by the Design Profession and local towns, to marry the two codes. The task force resolve which parts of what code took precedence. This was before the ICC. After the marriage of the codes there was not any conflict on who trumps who. The NFPA just needs to get out of the Building Codes.

I am currently on a project that is using the NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code. I wonder who scratched who’s back at the FED level to get that code approved to use on Bureau of Indian Affairs Department projects. Why is it we cannot have just one Building Code?
 
The LSC also goes into some specifics about the ceiling membrane construction where the smoke partitions do not extend all the way up in Section 8.2.4.2. Definitly would not allow a suspended acoustical ceiling.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is the LSC that specifically allows a smoke partition to stop at a suspended acoustical celing. Quoting the 2009 version:

8.4.2 Continuity. The following shall apply to smoke partitions:

...

2)*They shall be permitted to extend from the floor to the underside of a monolithic or suspended ceiling system where the following conditions are met:

(a) The ceiling system forms a continuous membrane.

(b) A smoke-tight joint is provided between the top of the

smoke partition and the bottom of the suspended

ceiling.

© The space above the ceiling is not used as a plenum

A.8.4.2(2) An architectural, exposed, suspended-grid acoustical tile ceiling with penetrations for sprinklers, ducted HVAC supply and return-air diffusers, speakers, and recessed light fixtures is capable of limiting the transfer of smoke.

Since this is a smoke partition required by NFPA 101 rather than the IBC, NFPA rules should apply.
 
On the OP question, another IBC application for Smoke Partitions is for Incidental Use areas in sprinklered buildings.

508.2.2.1 Construction. ... Where Table 508.2 permits an automatic fire-extinguishing system without a fire barrier, the incidental use area shall be separated from the remainder of the building by construction capable of resisting the passage of smoke.

While this is not really a "Smoke Partition", I see many architects designating those type of walls as "Smoke Partitions" because "construction capable of resisting the passage of smoke" doesn't fit on their legend. Besides, designating them "Smoke Partitions" clears up some questions such as how to deal with ducts and transfer air penetrations since 710 is pretty clear on the subject.
 
The Architect most likely does not look beyond the Incidental Uses section of the code. If he did he would find that he may not really need to provide those spaces with “walls constructed to resist the passage of smoke” by looking at the other Mixed Occupancy choices he could use.

It has been my experience, especially with school projects, that the aggregate amount of storage areas is usually below the 10% rule using the Accessory Occupancies section or I can use the Non-separated Occupancy section of the code.
 
Any solid partition would resist the passage of hot gases (smoke) long enough for the heat to activate the sprinkler, which is the purpose of 508.2.2.1 (508.2.5.2 in the 2009 IBC). It isn't necessary to comply with all the requirements of IBC 711.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top