# Stories without Openings clarification



## manifold (Oct 3, 2017)

I am trying to determine the intent of the IBC 2015 903.2.11.1 Stories without Openings language:

903.2.11.1 Stories without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet and where there is not provided not fewer than one of the following types of exterior wall openings:

1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground level by an exterior stairway complying with Section 1009 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1010. *Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet, or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on at least one side*. *The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet.*​I am working with an existing basement, B occupancy, approximately 50'x40', unsprinklered. There is an existing compliant door to a stair to grade roughly in the middle of one of the 50' walls.  Travel distance to the door is less than 75'.  

My interpretation is that the existing door is a compliant opening on one side and therefore no sprinkler is required.  The code commentary seems to support this.

The AHJ has said that the openings need to be provided at least every 50' around the entire perimeter of the building, so approximately one in the center of each of the 4 walls.  

Is there a consensus as to which is correct?

​


----------



## cda (Oct 3, 2017)

How do you have a basement with four exposed walls ??

Anyway there are some pictures showing what they are talking about. Will try to link some.


----------



## cda (Oct 3, 2017)

Can you post a simple floor plan


----------



## cda (Oct 3, 2017)

http://www.campusfiresafety.org/Por...ul12-CodeCorner.pdf?ver=2014-04-29-150151-333


----------



## RLGA (Oct 3, 2017)

If this is an existing building as you said, then the IEBC would be applicable. If the existing occupancy is Group B (i.e., there is no change of occupancy) and the basement involves no alteration work, then the basement can continue to exist without a sprinkler system. Depending on the compliance method used as determined by the design professional, sprinklers may or may not be required for alteration work. The prescriptive compliance method states that the alteration work should not make the building any less compliant than it was previously; thus, depending on the type of alteration work, the basement might continue as unsprinklered without adding the additional openings. If the work area compliance method is used, then a Level 2 Alteration may require sprinklering per IEBC Section 804.2.3 or adding the openings to comply with the IBC.


----------



## cda (Oct 3, 2017)

I guess the other question is what are you doing to the basement that drives the requirement???


----------



## manifold (Oct 3, 2017)

RLGA said:


> If this is an existing building as you said, then the IEBC would be applicable. If the existing occupancy is Group B (i.e., there is no change of occupancy) and the basement involves no alteration work, then the basement can continue to exist without a sprinkler system. Depending on the compliance method used as determined by the design professional, sprinklers may or may not be required for alteration work. The prescriptive compliance method states that the alteration work should not mke the building any less compliant than it was previously; thus, depending on the type of alteration work, the basement might continue as unsprinklered without adding the additional openings. If the work area compliance method is used, then a Level 2 Alteration may require sprinklering per IEBC Section 804.2.3 or adding the openings to comply with the IBC.



There is a change of occupancy.  We have tried every possible argument to suggest that compliance with Section 903 is not required, but AHJ will not budge.


----------



## manifold (Oct 3, 2017)

cda said:


> http://www.campusfiresafety.org/Portals/0/Documents/Code Corner, International Code Council/Jul12-CodeCorner.pdf?ver=2014-04-29-150151-333



Thanks for posting this, it is similar to what i was looking at.  It seems that based on page 33, image 903.2.11.1.1 (1) that it is acceptable to have openings only on one side.


----------



## manifold (Oct 3, 2017)

cda said:


> http://www.campusfiresafety.org/Portals/0/Documents/Code Corner, International Code Council/Jul12-CodeCorner.pdf?ver=2014-04-29-150151-333



I don't seem to be able to post an image without liking to a URL.


----------



## cda (Oct 3, 2017)

manifold said:


> I don't seem to be able to post an image without liking to a URL.



Yes if not a sawhorse have to do a link


----------



## cda (Oct 3, 2017)

What is the occupancy change???

What to what


----------



## CityKin (Oct 4, 2017)

I think the AHJ is wrong.  The intent is that the fire department can open the door and spray to the back wall.  

The openings only need to be along one side as long as the fire hose can spray the back wall IMO.


----------



## classicT (Oct 4, 2017)

CityKin said:


> I think the AHJ is wrong.  The intent is that the fire department can open the door and spray to the back wall.
> 
> The openings only need to be along one side as long as the fire hose can spray the back wall IMO.



Agreed. The openings are only required along one wall, unless the travel distances are greater than 75'.


----------



## manifold (Oct 4, 2017)

Thanks to everyone for your input! I am going to proceed based on the existing opening satisfying the requirements of this section.


----------



## cda (Oct 4, 2017)

manifold said:


> Thanks to everyone for your input! I am going to proceed based on the existing opening satisfying the requirements of this section.




Is the opening ground level

Or do you have to climb stairs to get to it??

I was unsure in the op


----------



## manifold (Oct 4, 2017)

cda said:


> Is the opening ground level
> 
> Or do you have to climb stairs to get to it??
> 
> I was unsure in the op



The opening is a door at the basement level, about 8'-0" below grade.  It opens onto a stair that goes up to grade.  It is an existing concrete stair that almost complies with Section 1011, so we will likely have to ask for leniency to allow for some dimensional non-uniformity in the risers/treads.

On a side note, I noticed what appears to be a typo in Section 903.2.11.1 #1: it references stairways that comply with Section 1009 and ramps that comply with 1010. These are the IBC 2012 sections, in IBC 2015 these sections cover Accessible Means of Egress and Doors, Gates and Turnstiles respectively.  IBC 2015 Section 1011 covers stairs and 1012 is ramps.


----------



## classicT (Oct 4, 2017)

manifold said:


> Thanks to everyone for your input! I am going to proceed based on the existing opening satisfying the requirements of this section.


By proceed, I really hope you mean continuing to work with the AHJ, not continuing work in defiance of the AHJ.

Best of luck either way, although the latter is not a promising path.


----------



## cda (Oct 4, 2017)

manifold said:


> The opening is a door at the basement level, about 8'-0" below grade.  It opens onto a stair that goes up to grade.  It is an existing concrete stair that almost complies with Section 1011, so we will likely have to ask for leniency to allow for some dimensional non-uniformity in the risers/treads.
> 
> On a side note, I noticed what appears to be a typo in Section 903.2.11.1 #1: it references stairways that comply with Section 1009 and ramps that comply with 1010. These are the IBC 2012 sections, in IBC 2015 these sections cover Accessible Means of Egress and Doors, Gates and Turnstiles respectively.  IBC 2015 Section 1011 covers stairs and 1012 is ramps.





I think that is the problem

I want to say the opening has to be on the same level


----------



## manifold (Oct 4, 2017)

cda said:


> I think that is the problem
> 
> I want to say the opening has to be on the same level



The story in question is the basement, so the basement door to the exterior should satisfy the requirements (unless I am missing something).


----------



## cda (Oct 4, 2017)

manifold said:


> The story in question is the basement, so the basement door to the exterior should satisfy the requirements (unless I am missing something).





Sorry read it wrong

The opening is a door at the basement level, about 8'-0" below grade. It opens onto a stair that goes up to grade.

Still wonder if that is the ahj's hang up


----------



## cda (Oct 4, 2017)

Also::::


What is the occupancy change???

What to what


----------



## manifold (Oct 4, 2017)

cda said:


> Also::::
> 
> 
> What is the occupancy change???
> ...



F-1 to B


----------



## cda (Oct 4, 2017)

manifold said:


> F-1 to B




So is that a lesser hazard or equal and the mighty IEBC may not require basement sprinkler??

Not an IEBC user


----------



## manifold (Oct 5, 2017)

cda said:


> So is that a lesser hazard or equal and the mighty IEBC may not require basement sprinkler??
> 
> Not an IEBC user


 It is an equal or lesser hazard, depending on the situation. However, that doesn't come into play for the sprinkler.  IEBC 1012.2.1 requires compliance with IBC Chapter 9 for change of occupancy.


----------

