• 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.

Vertical Exit Enclosures

D

damstein

REGISTERED
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
22
Hello all,

I stumbled onto this forum while I was doing some code research for a project and thought maybe I could get some second opinions on a code issue I am running into? I'll try to keep it brief, but would greatly appreciate any additional thoughts you all might have!

Here is my dilemma....

I have a two-story walk up apartment building with 12 units (R-2, Construction Type 5A per the 2009 IBC, that is fully sprinklered with an NFPA 13R system). Each half of the building is separated by a 2hr. fire barrier and has a single open stair that serves 3 units on the 2nd floor. The open stair and associated 1st and 2nd floor "hallways" are to be considered the fire-rated "vertical exit enclosure".

Now the issue...

Based on a recent plan review, we are being told that our electrical service room and mechanical rooms which are located directly off of the fire rated exit enclosure (read "end of hallway") at each floor, cannot be accessed directly from the "enclosed vertical exit enclosure" and that an alternate access to these areas needs to be provided. See refereneced code section from the 2009 IBC below.

SECTION 1020 VERTICAL EXIT ENCLOSURES

1020.1 Enclosures required.

Interior exit stairways and interior exit ramps shall be enclosed with fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 706 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. Exit enclosures shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours where connecting four stories or more and not less than 1 hour where connecting less than four stories. The number of stories connected by the exit enclosure shall include any basements but not any mezzanines. An exit enclosure shall not be used for any purpose other than means of egress.

It is our contention that since these spaces are separated from the "exit enclosure" with a fire barrier that extends to underside of roof sheathing, that they should not be considered part of the exit enclosure, and therefore do not require a separate means of access.

Wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this or how I might better explain this to the code official?

Thanks for your comments in advance.
 
Welcome to the board. Now that you have stumbled in, keep jumping right in on the discussions.

The interpretation is correct that electrical and mechanical rooms cannot open into an exit enclosure. Only normally occupied spaces can open into an exit enclosure.

The question to solve: is an exit enclosure really required? Many two story buildings are allowed open stairs under the IBC.
 
Builder Bob said:
An exit enclosure shall not be used for any purpose other than means of egress.Sounds fairly black and white to me.........IMHO
Click to expand...
Unless an exit enclosure is not required by the IBC in this two story building
 
I agree with Coug Dad on this. You can make a cat into a dog if you like, but it probably won't work out the way you want it to, and you will only end up having to follow it around and pick up it's poop for the rest of project when you could have been perfectly happy with the cat.

I would try 1020.1, Exception 1 and see if that will not work for you.
 
Since when is a mechanical room non-ocupiable? Table 1004.1 indicates 1 occupant per 300 s/f.

For that matter, where does the code say anything about spaces opening into a vertical exit enclosure? The code addresses concerns regarding space usage once one is "within the enclosure". These ancillary spaces are separated from the enclosure with a 1 hour wall same as the apartments.
 
Ba Ba BaWhat!

Exception 1 limits occupant load to 10. At 200 s/f per occupant we are well over the maximum permitted 10 occupants. I also seem to recall travel distance being an issue in a building with one means of egress which was why we rated the stair eclosure / entry hallways in the first place.

You can also get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ***** but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it? Tommy Boy 1995
 
damstein said:
Since when is a mechanical room non-ocupiable? Table 1004.1 indicates 1 occupant per 300 s/f. For that matter, where does the code say anything about spaces opening into a vertical exit enclosure? The code addresses concerns regarding space usage once one is "within the enclosure". These ancillary spaces are separated from the enclosure with a 1 hour wall same as the apartments.
Click to expand...
Mechanical Rooms are occupiable, but not normally occupied.

Section 1020.1.1 (2006)
 
Again, I will restate, if you need the dog, then get a dog, but please don't complain about the bark when you don't like the way it bites. I was merely stating that if you could get by with a cat, it would be a lot less painless to do so in the long run. Personally I prefer dogs to cats, but then again we don't have leash and pooper scooper laws around here for cats.

Please contact your AHJ and get an interpretation on 1020.1.1's "...openings in exit enclosures other than unprotected exterior openings shall be limited to those necessary for exit access to the enclosure from normally occupied spaces adn for egress from the enclosure." I would probably not use the quote from tommy-boy when you talk to the AHJ.

Thanks for thanking me in advance for my comment, and best of luck to you.
 
With the referenced code section I see where the issue is. I actually lived in a newer 3 story apartment with almost this exact layout and construction type (jurisdiction with an IBC based code as well) so I know it can be built.

I guess we need to figure out a way to eliminate the need for a rated enclosure. Anybody know where I can get a cat?

P.S. I too am a dog person but if it makes my life easier.....Thanks again!
 
I was actually looking at IBC 2009 Section 708.2 Exception11 (Shaft Enclosures), where it then refers you to 1016.1 exception 3 or 4 which addresses travel distance and unenclosed stairs.

But, if an exit enclosure is required because of 1022 (Exit Enclosures), then can you use the above logic...and if not...when can the above logic be applied?
 
If several apartments open directly into "the exit enclosure" at each level then, IMO, it's not really an exit.

It's an exit access.
 
The issue is that is a single-exit, 2 story walk-up apartment building and I believe travel distance became an issue which was why we decided to just make the central halls a rated shaft in essence.

I have a few options that I am going to propose, but if you have a direction you could point me in that would eliminate the need for potential plan changes I would certainly appreciate it?!
 
My first recommendation is to set up a meeting with the AHJ to discuss their concerns and their openness to alternative designs (Section 104.11 - is a touchy section of the code for some jurisdictions). You may wish to do some background research of other codes, such as NFPA, or newer versions of the code that may have exceptions or alternatives listed in favor of what you are proposing and cite them with your proposal (provide copies of the applicable codes for the AHJ's review). Perhaps sprinklering the rooms in question may help in combination with the 2 hour assembly and 1 1/2 hour opening protection.

Please let us know how things go. Good luck again.
 
Which floor are the Electrical & Mechanical rooms located? Are they adjacent to any exterior walls? A sketch is always helpful and can be provided by linking to websites such as photobucket.
 
The mechanical/electrical/Communication rooms are at the end of a double loaded hallway on each floor and are on an exterior wall. The stair is basically on one side of the corridor in between unit entrances if you can picture it. Very simple, everything stacks including the units above.

So we could have an exterior door on the first floor but would need to delete the rooms above. Not an ideal proposition but it is an option. I have some other options as well, but will definitely be contacting the local AHJ.

I'll let you know how it all shakes out.....
 
damstein said:
The issue is that is a single-exit, 2 story walk-up apartment building and I believe travel distance became an issue which was why we decided to just make the central halls a rated shaft in essence. I have a few options that I am going to propose, but if you have a direction you could point me in that would eliminate the need for potential plan changes I would certainly appreciate it?!
Click to expand...
At this point, there is no plan...at least that I can see.
 
If it is a rated exit enclosure or exit passageway only exit access corridors or normally occupied spaces can open into the EXIT. Storage room, toilet rooms, electrical rooms, mechanical rooms and the like are not normally occupied as an office space or dwelling unit is. The Code Commentary is a good source of information to aid in understanding parts of the Code. I will also mention that I have had this discussion many times with clients and reconfirmed repeatedly with Code Congress on what can open into an EXIT.
 
The situation has been resolved! Spoke with the local AHJ and he has accepted our approach. There is an exception to the 2006 IBC (applicable code) that refers back Section 402.4.6 (don't have the code in front of me to verify section number), which makes special exception for utility rooms. While this is in the "Covered Mall" section, it was deemed to apply to our situation as the original code reference does not preclude R-2 buildings.

The other option as I believe was inferred to earlier, would have been to eliminate the need for a "vertical enclosure" all together (read dog vs cat post). However, based on the 2006 code, there appears to be a conrtadiction in that the Code limits travel distance to 50' in R-2 for "Buildings with One Exit" serving 4 units or less, while Section 1014 limits overall "commom path of travel" to 125' if the building is sprinklered per NFPA 13 for R-2 buildings? Could one assume that the 125' limitation would apply? Or would the more stringent of the two be applicable?

Interesting enough this exception was deleted from the 2009 Code, with a further revision to the 2012Code which includes a new table that allows for an "exit access" distance of 125' if the building is fully sprinklered per NFPA 13 OR 13R.

In either case, what has been accepted I believe actually provides a higher level of protection.

Again thank you all for your input! You all provided the insight I needed to resolve this issue! This is a great forum that provides for an exchange of ideas/opinions and personal experience. In the future I will definitely chime in if I can offer any input.

You never know when that little piece of information can help!
 
Covered Mall Buildings?

For an apartment occupancy?

Just because you got a permit doesn't mean you met the building code.

And it doesn't mean your *** isn't liable, or that the inspector won't tell you that you're on crack after you've built it and before you get CO.

That's totally, fking insane.

Seriously.
 
Short and simple, the new 2012 Code allows 125' of exit access travel distance in a sprinklered building making the need for an exit enclosure and this whole issue of what spaces can open into it a moot issue.

What we are providing is a actually higher level of protection.
 
damstein said:
Short and simple, the new 2012 Code allows 125' of exit access travel distance in a sprinklered building making the need for an exit enclosure and this whole issue of what spaces can open into it a moot issue. What we are providing is a actually higher level of protection.
Click to expand...
But which code are you working with? You started out with 2009, then brought 2006 into the conversation as the applicable code, and now your making your decision based on 2012.
 
damstein said:
The situation has been resolved! Spoke with the local AHJ and he has accepted our approach. There is an exception to the 2006 IBC (applicable code) that refers back Section 402.4.6 (don't have the code in front of me to verify section number), which makes special exception for utility rooms. While this is in the "Covered Mall" section, it was deemed to apply to our situation as the original code reference does not preclude R-2 buildings. The other option as I believe was inferred to earlier, would have been to eliminate the need for a "vertical enclosure" all together (read dog vs cat post). However, based on the 2006 code, there appears to be a conrtadiction in that the Code limits travel distance to 50' in R-2 for "Buildings with One Exit" serving 4 units or less, while Section 1014 limits overall "commom path of travel" to 125' if the building is sprinklered per NFPA 13 for R-2 buildings? Could one assume that the 125' limitation would apply? Or would the more stringent of the two be applicable?

Interesting enough this exception was deleted from the 2009 Code, with a further revision to the 2012Code which includes a new table that allows for an "exit access" distance of 125' if the building is fully sprinklered per NFPA 13 OR 13R.

In either case, what has been accepted I believe actually provides a higher level of protection.

Again thank you all for your input! You all provided the insight I needed to resolve this issue! This is a great forum that provides for an exchange of ideas/opinions and personal experience. In the future I will definitely chime in if I can offer any input.

You never know when that little piece of information can help!
Click to expand...
I don't see the contradiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top