# Does a patio area need to be part of the occupant load calc?



## Pcinspector1

Existing restaurant A-2, with under 100 OL adds a seasonal covered patio seating area adding 32 seats at grade open three sides outside it's door. Now OL is 132, its over 100 requiring a sprinkler system. The 32 occupants could exit through a gate or hop the fence to freedom. Should the 32 seats be added to the occupant load or is there any exemption that I've over looked?

Change in code:

IBC2003 903.2.1.2 Group A-2 (if over 300 occupants require sprinkler)

IBC2006 903.2.1.2 Group A-2 (if over 100 occupants require sprinkler)


----------



## mark handler

No the patio occupants are not, building occupants.

Do the building occupants exit through the patio?

If they do the building occupants need to be added to the patio occupants in determining the gate width. And the gate may need panic hardware if the gate load is high enough.


----------



## mtlogcabin

No the patio occupant load does not add to the occupant load for sprinkler requirements.

 [F] 903.2.1.2 Group A-2.

An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group A-2 occupancies where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The fire area exceeds 5,000 square feet (465 m2);

2. The fire area has an occupant load of 100 or more; or

3. The fire area is located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge.

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, *exterior walls* or fire-resistance-rated horizontal assemblies of a building


----------



## cda

I vote that they are building occupants

where are they going to go to the bathroom at???

as far as sprinklers more then likely no, unless they do sometype of enclousure with walls


----------



## Gene Boecker

I'll take the opposite side of the argument as well. If the patio occupants must travel back through the building to egress, then they must be added to the total occupant load. If there can be a case for non-simultaneous occupancy then maybe the number can be reduced. Otherwise the patio PLUS interior building occupants represent the total number to be exposed to the potential threat (assuming egress is back inside). In that case, they must be counted. The number of individuals that must pass through the "fire area" would include the patio.

(Weird! being more conservative that the building officials.)


----------



## mtlogcabin

The patio OL does contribute to the plumbing and egress requirements but not the sprinkler requirements because the fire area OL does not exceed 100. You can have a 200 OL A-2 but if you create different fire areas that do not exceed the 100 OL requirement you do not have to sprinkler the building.


----------



## Pcinspector1

mtlogcabin,

I tend to agree and that the code uses the term "fire area" definition in sec.702.1 bounded by fire walls or exterior walls, which the patio is bounded by the one exterior block wall from the restaurant and three low fenced sides of the patio area with a gate egress to the parking lot.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Gene,

Patio occupants do not have to exit back through the restaurant in this case but most of the time do. During a fire they can exit through the gate to the parking area.


----------



## texasbo

Would anyone consider the roofed outdoor area as part of the building area per 502.1?


----------



## north star

*& & &*

Pcinspector1,

Does the existing A-2 have a sufficient number of functional MOE

[ refer to Section 3410.6.11  ] ?

texasbo,

Yes!

*& & &*


----------



## dbrown

The IBC 2006 code commentary has an interesting take on this issue, it references the IFC Comittee Interpretation No. 25-05 which states in part that "where no surrounding exterior walls are provided along the perimeter of the building, the building area is used to identify and determine the applicable fire area." Outdoor areas such as pavilions and patios may have no walls, but will have an occupant load and other factors that identify the assembly occupancy as such. If any of the thresholds are reached requiring sprinkler protection, then sprinkler protection must be provided whether there are exterior walls or not.

We have had 2 of these recently and one went for the sprinklers and one did away with the patio area.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Interesting commentary but it does not address this case where you have 2 different fire areas each with an OL of less than 100 and neither one by it self requires sprinklers


----------



## north star

*%  %  %*

dbrown,

Welcome to the Codes Forum! 

*%  %  %*


----------



## texasbo

In reference to mtlogcabins and dbrowns post, I think the real question is, if it's all considered the same building area, then how can you consider the wall between the roofed enclosed area and the roofed unenclosed area an exterior wall? And if it's not an exterior wall, how can you consider them separate fire areas, unless of course the wall was constructed as a fire barrier?

In certain cases, I've looked at certain small and/or temporary, roofed patio areas that are open on 3 sides as "architectural projections", but there are those that would say I'm misapplying the code.

I think the most conservative and correct interpretation would be that referenced by dbrown, and the reason I asked the question in post #9.


----------



## Pcinspector1

north star,

Yes, three total MOE's from the restaurant, this was a double tenant space on the end of a building. Was set up for a bank drive through that is now proposed as a patio area with the roof above and open on three sides. Punching in the third door for patio access on end wall of building. Good MOE!

Everyones aware of the *reduced occupant load *from the IBC "03" to the "06" codes, right? 300 OL to 100 OL, big change.

pc1


----------



## hlfireinspector

If the covered pato roof is projection from orginal roof line then it is part of the building and is considered in the fire area. Where do these people use the restrooms, pay the tab? They must use the orginal building for services to this area. How can a area that is serviced by the orginal building not be part of that building? The code does not say that occupant load from outside area is not included in occupancy factor it says that if egress for this area passes through the building exits shall be provided in accordance with the total ocupant load.

2006 International Fire Code

*1004.8 Outdoor areas. *




Yards, patios, courts and similar outdoor




areas accessible to and usable by the building occupants

shall be provided with means of egress as required by this chapter.

The occupant load of such outdoor areas shall be assigned

by the fire code official in accordance with the anticipated use.

Where outdoor areas are to be used by persons in addition to the

occupants of the building, and the path of egress travel from the

outdoor areas passes through the building, means of egress

requirements for the building shall be based on the sum of the

occupant loads of the building plus the outdoor areas.

*Exceptions:*

1. Outdoor areas used exclusively for service of the

building need only have one means of egress.

2. Both outdoor areas associated with Group R-3 and
​individual dwelling units of Group R-2.


----------



## Builder Bob

Best answer, it depends..... What type of roof projection are we talking about? Does the occupants out side "have" to travel back thru the building to exit? What is the owner going to add at a later date to prevent tab hopping?


----------



## Pcinspector1

hlfireinspector,

1004.8 Outdoor areas.

Where outdoor areas are to be used by persons in addition to the

occupants of the building, and the *path of egress travel from the*

*outdoor areas passes through the building*, means of egress

requirements for the building shall be based on the sum of the

occupant loads of the building plus the outdoor areas.

This is not the case, egress path is to leave the building not enter the building.

This part of the code is like a courtyard surrounded by buildings that you would have to egress through a building to get to the parking area or safe area on the other side?


----------



## texasbo

I don't really see what having the patio occupants exit through the building has to do with the building being sprinklered. An A-2 is required to be sprinklered if the OL exceeds 100. Does the OL of this building exceed 100?

Is the covered patio part of the building? In my opinion this is where the real question lies.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> An A-2 is required to be sprinklered if the OL exceeds 100.


Only if the OL of the fire area exceeds 100. My thoughts are this has 2 fire areas. 1 inside and 1 outside. The exterior wall does not have to meet the requirements of a fire barrier to comply with the fire area definition (see 706.6) it only has to meet the construction requirements of 704. therfore the OL in either fire area does not exceed 100 no sprinklers required


----------



## mueller

I see the 2009 IBC is not applicable in this situation, but if it were, see the new definition of fire area.

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above. [F]


----------



## Pcinspector1

mtlogcabin,

I'm riding your dirtbike on this one, I agree so far that its a different fire area, not needing a sprinkler system in either area. And that egress is just that, egress not ingress.

pc1


----------



## north star

** * **

Since we are playing "devils advocate"... :razz:

Just suppose that the inside OL is 100, and the outside OL is 100.

What if some of the patrons from outside come inside to use the

facilities and decide it's better inside than outside. They now

stay inside and the inside OL increase by 1 or more. What now?

Who enforces the OL maximum?

or,

there are two sets of patrons being served, some inside and

some outside [ on this faint-see patio area ]. The weather

turns and forces some of the revenue stream indoors. The OL

now increases significantly. What now?

FWIW, this type of business set-up has the very real

potential for OL overloading.

** * **


----------



## mark handler

"devils advocate"...

Just suppose that More people come than allowed by the OL

What if  the patrons from inside and outside decide to stay,

 What now? Does it change the OL?

Because prople are waiting to get in, Does it change the OL?

No.


----------



## texasbo

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Only if the OL of the fire area exceeds 100. My thoughts are this has 2 fire areas. 1 inside and 1 outside. The exterior wall does not have to meet the requirements of a fire barrier to comply with the fire area definition (see 706.6) it only has to meet the construction requirements of 704. therfore the OL in either fire area does not exceed 100 no sprinklers required


I agree with you that an exterior wall defines a fire area, but is a wall that is built inside a building an exterior wall? If I have a 10,000 sf roofed, open sided structure, and I build a wall right down the middle of it, is that an exterior wall? If this building was adjacent to a property line, and the roof of the patio was right on the property line, wouldn't you call the patio for lack of opening protection?

I think it's easy to visualize a building with a little 6' wide canopy and ignore the canopy. But what about when the roofed but open sided dining area is as large as the enclosed portion?


----------



## north star

*@  @  @* 

While it may not change the calculated OL, it would change the actual OL.

Again, who is going to enforce the OL maximum? Certainly not the

business owner...    Do Fire Depts. make impromptu visits, at irregular hours

to verify?



*@  @  @*


----------



## Pcinspector1

north star,

I'm told the state fire marshal enforces this, but not clear how often or when, maybe after a complaint? I provide the OC and ask that it be posted near the main door entry as per code 1004.3 for all A-Groups. The local Fire District said the BO was to enforce it when a local bar had too many patrons, not sure they know who enforces it either.

pc1


----------



## mtlogcabin

mueller said:
			
		

> I see the 2009 IBC is not applicable in this situation, but if it were, see the new definition of fire area.FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above. [F]


This is the same as a building area definition. All they did was change the word building to fire and added it to the fire area definition which directly contradicts the allowable use of exterior walls as defining a fire area

Back to the 2006



> If I have a 10,000 sf roofed, open sided structure, and I build a wall right down the middle of it, is that an exterior wall?


No

EXTERIOR WALL. A wall, bearing or nonbearing, that is used as an enclosing wall for a building, other than a fire wall, and that has a slope of 60 degrees (1.05 rad) or greater with the horizontal plane.


----------



## Simonsays

I too side with the FIRE AREA group. Look at how the code determines when a fire alarm is required. For that system, the triggering criteria is just occupant load.


----------



## hlfireinspector

* I will not say where I got this!!!!!!!!!!! I know it is not the code.*

*1004.8 Outdoor areas. *Yards, patios, courts and similar outdoor

areas accessible to and usable by the building occupants

shall be provided with means of egress as required by this chapter.

The occupant load of such outdoor areas shall be assigned

by the building official in accordance with the anticipated use.

Where outdoor areas are to be used by persons in addition to the

occupants of the building, and the path of egress travel from the

outdoor areas passes through the building, means of egress

requirements for the building shall be based on the sum of the

occupant loads of the building plus the outdoor areas.
​

*Exceptions:*
​


1. Outdoor areas used exclusively for service of the

building need only have one means of egress.

2. Both outdoor areas associated with Group R-3 and

individual dwelling units of Group R-2.
​

This section addresses the means of egress of outdoor
​areas such as yards, patios and courts. The primary




primary

concern is for those outdoor areas used for functions

that may include occupants other than the building

occupants, or solely by the building occupants

where egress from the outdoor area is back through

the building to reach the exit discharge. An example is

an interior court of an office building where assembly

functions are held during normal business hours for

persons other than the building occupants. When

court occupants must egress from the interior court

back through the building, the building’s egress system

is to be designed for the building occupants, plus

the assembly occupants from the interior court.* Another*

*example would be an outdoor dining area that*

*exited back through the restaurant.*

*The occupant load is to be assigned by the building*

*official based on **use.** It is suggested that the design*

*occupant load be determined in accordance with Section*

*1004.1.1.*
​

*The exceptions describe conditions where the combination*
​*of occupant loads is not a concern.*



*1004.1.1 Areas without fixed seating.*




The design occupant load is also utilized for other

code requirements, such as determining the required
​plumbing fixture count (see commentary, Chapter 29)




and other building requirements, *including automatic*

*sprinkler systems and fire alarm and detection systems*
​But then comes this:




Some occupancies may not typically contain

an occupant load totally consistent with the occupant

load density factors of Table 1004.1.2. The exception

is intended to address the limited circumstances

where the actual occupant load is less than the calculated

occupant load. Previously, designing for a reduced

occupant load was permitted only through the

variance process. With this exception, the building official

can make a determination if a design that would

use the actual occupant load was permissible. The

building official may want to create specific conditions

for approval. For example, the building official could

permit the actual occupant load to be utilized to determine

the plumbing fixture count, *but not the means of*

*egress or sprinkler design;* the determination could be

that the reduced occupant load may be utilized in a

specific area, such as in the storage warehouse, but
​not in the factory or office areas.


----------



## hlfireinspector

*I will not say where I got this!!!!!!!!!!! I know it is not the code.*
​*1004.8 Outdoor areas. *




Yards, patios, courts and similar outdoor




areas accessible to and usable by the building occupants

shall be provided with means of egress as required by this chapter.

The occupant load of such outdoor areas shall be assigned

by the building official in accordance with the anticipated use.

Where outdoor areas are to be used by persons in addition to the

occupants of the building, and the path of egress travel from the

outdoor areas passes through the building, means of egress

requirements for the building shall be based on the sum of the

occupant loads of the building plus the outdoor areas.

*Exceptions:*

1. Outdoor areas used exclusively for service of the

building need only have one means of egress.

2. Both outdoor areas associated with Group R-3 and

individual dwelling units of Group R-2.

This section addresses the means of egress of outdoor
​areas such as yards, patios and courts. The primary




primary

concern is for those outdoor areas used for functions

that may include occupants other than the building

occupants, or solely by the building occupants

where egress from the outdoor area is back through

the building to reach the exit discharge. An example is

an interior court of an office building where assembly

functions are held during normal business hours for

persons other than the building occupants. When

court occupants must egress from the interior court

back through the building, the building’s egress system

is to be designed for the building occupants, plus

the assembly occupants from the interior court.* Another*

*example would be an outdoor dining area that*

*exited back through the restaurant.*

*The occupant load is to be assigned by the building*

*official based on **use.** It is suggested that the design*

*occupant load be determined in accordance with Section*

*1004.1.1.*

*The exceptions describe conditions where the combination*
​*of occupant loads is not a concern.*



*1004.1.1 Areas without fixed seating.*




The design occupant load is also utilized for other

code requirements, such as determining the required
​plumbing fixture count (see commentary, Chapter 29)




and other building requirements, *including automatic*

*sprinkler systems and fire alarm and detection systems*
​But then comes this:




Some occupancies may not typically contain

an occupant load totally consistent with the occupant

load density factors of Table 1004.1.2. The exception

is intended to address the limited circumstances

where the actual occupant load is less than the calculated

occupant load. Previously, designing for a reduced

occupant load was permitted only through the

variance process. With this exception, the building official

can make a determination if a design that would

use the actual occupant load was permissible. The

building official may want to create specific conditions

for approval. For example, the building official could

permit the actual occupant load to be utilized to determine

the plumbing fixture count, *but not the means of*

*egress or sprinkler design;* the determination could be

that the reduced occupant load may be utilized in a

specific area, such as in the storage warehouse, but
​not in the factory or office areas.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Patio occupants do not have to exit back through the restaurant in this case but most of the time do


The answer is based upon the information provided. The patio area does not exit thru the building therefore there is no increase in the original OL.


----------



## hlfireinspector

I agree. I have quite a few of these that exit back into the building and have railing around them that prevent escaping from the tab. I even have outdoor band stand with dance floor and BO allowed port-a-john for facilities but is fenced with 6 foot fence and who knows who has key to lock on gate this week. Don't like it but had to eat it. They even do outside grilling on huge gas grill. When first built I found sink drain plumbed to local ditch.  Titki bar built without permits and permited after fact.


----------



## peach

How nice.. a porta john near a dancing deck and eating facilities.  However, if it has the correct number of fixtures and the appropriate exits for the patio area (without having to exit back thru the building), and assuming the required exits for the rest of the building don't involve going thru the patio, it probably meets the intent of the code.


----------



## Pcinspector1

peach,

As your #33 post states, this is the plan except for the porta john. Exits and the interior facilities will accommodate the patio patrons one at a time of coarse and not exceed the OL.

pc1


----------

