# Vertical Exit Enclosures



## damstein (Jul 7, 2012)

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.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 8, 2012)

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 (Jul 9, 2012)

An exit enclosure shall not be used for any purpose other than means of egress.

Sounds fairly black and white to me.........IMHO


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 9, 2012)

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


Unless an exit enclosure is not required by the IBC in this two story building


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## damstein (Jul 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## damstein (Jul 9, 2012)

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


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 9, 2012)

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.


Mechanical Rooms are occupiable, but not normally occupied.

Section 1020.1.1 (2006)


----------



## brudgers (Jul 9, 2012)

A sketch would be helpful.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## damstein (Jul 10, 2012)

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!


----------



## rooster (Jul 10, 2012)

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?


----------



## brudgers (Jul 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## damstein (Jul 10, 2012)

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?!


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jul 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## damstein (Jul 10, 2012)

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.....


----------



## brudgers (Jul 10, 2012)

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?!


  At this point, there is no plan...at least that I can see.


----------



## Examiner (Jul 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## damstein (Jul 10, 2012)

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!


----------



## brudgers (Jul 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## damstein (Jul 11, 2012)

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.


----------



## rooster (Jul 11, 2012)

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.


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.


----------



## rooster (Jul 11, 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.
> 
> ...


I don't see the contradiction.


----------



## rooster (Jul 11, 2012)

...and the million dollar question is what part of the any of the codes is allowing you to have one exit from the second floor if you have a travel distance greater than 50?

And the common path of egress section shouldn't come into play unless you have more than one exit.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 11, 2012)

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.


That is a big change. I just read it and agree your project would fly under the 2012 edition since the exit enclosure is not required.


----------



## steveray (Jul 11, 2012)

If it flies under a newer code,....ask the AHJ if they will modify to the newer code that they will probably be on soon anyway......that works alot here....



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> That is a big change. I just read it and agree your project would fly under the 2012 edition since the exit enclosure is not required.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 11, 2012)

Yeah, just pick a section of IBC 2012 here.

  Part of covered mall buildings from 2006.

  Maybe a provision from NFPA 101, too.

  But only so long as you include Hammurabi.


----------



## rooster (Jul 11, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> That is a big change. I just read it and agree your project would fly under the 2012 edition since the exit enclosure is not required.


How does it fly if he only has one exit?  Am I missing something?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 11, 2012)

The 2012 allows a single exit from a 2nd floor serving no more than 4 dwelling units with a maximum access travel distance of 125 ft in a sprinklered building (doubled from the 2009 code) CPOT is not applicable in this case

Travel distance is from the most remote point in the dwelling (building) to the exit

A typical apartment can eat up 50 to 70 feet of travel distance pretty easily. My guess is the extra distance was an easy way to eliminate the exit enclosure on smaller apartment buildings.

My question of confusion is the code says 4 units per story not per stair served. The OP has 6 units on the second floor with 2 stairs serving 3 units each. Is it code compliant by a literal interpretation? If not would it be code compliant under the "intent" of the code. No more than 4 dwelling units can use the same exit stair


----------



## rooster (Jul 11, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The 2012 allows a single exit from a 2nd floor serving no more than 4 dwelling units with a maximum access travel distance of 125 ft in a sprinklered building (doubled from the 2009 code) CPOT is not applicable in this caseTravel distance is from the most remote point in the dwelling (building) to the exit
> 
> A typical apartment can eat up 50 to 70 feet of travel distance pretty easily. My guess is the extra distance was an easy way to eliminate the exit enclosure on smaller apartment buildings.
> 
> My question of confusion is the code says 4 units per story not per stair served. The OP has 6 units on the second floor with 2 stairs serving 3 units each. Is it code compliant by a literal interpretation? If not would it be code compliant under the "intent" of the code. No more than 4 dwelling units can use the same exit stair


Thanks for the clarification.  The OP was frequently referring to section 1014, so I was under the impression this was the 2012 change.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 11, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The 2012 allows a single exit from a 2nd floor serving no more than 4 dwelling units with a maximum access travel distance of 125 ft in a sprinklered building (doubled from the 2009 code) CPOT is not applicable in this case  Travel distance is from the most remote point in the dwelling (building) to the exit  A typical apartment can eat up 50 to 70 feet of travel distance pretty easily. My guess is the extra distance was an easy way to eliminate the exit enclosure on smaller apartment buildings.  My question of confusion is the code says 4 units per story not per stair served. The OP has 6 units on the second floor with 2 stairs serving 3 units each. Is it code compliant by a literal interpretation? If not would it be code compliant under the "intent" of the code. No more than 4 dwelling units can use the same exit stair


  IMO, the intent of the code is to limit the number of units per story to reduce the odds of:   1.  A fire starting.

  2. Someone being asleep during a fire.

  Unless there is a firewall creating two buildings, six units doesn't fly.

  Of course, neither does the mix and match code analysis.


----------



## kilitact (Jul 11, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> IMO, the intent of the code is to limit the number of units per story to reduce the odds of:   1.  A fire starting.
> 
> 2. Someone being asleep during a fire.
> 
> ...


Of course theoretically if the apartments are located in certain parts of town using Milton’s rule you could say that it’s similar to a shopping mall. People shop for all kinds of goodies in the projects


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 11, 2012)

The 2012 allows a single exit from a 2nd floor serving no more than 4 dwelling units with a maximum access travel distance of 125 ft in a sprinklered building (doubled from the 2009 code) CPOT is not applicable in this case Travel distance is from the most remote point in the dwelling (building) to the exit A typical apartment can eat up 50 to 70 feet of travel distance pretty easily. My guess is the extra distance was an easy way to eliminate the exit enclosure on smaller apartment buildings.

now the other issue at hand...... so i can have 6,000 SF dwelling units dumping onto a single stairway. Where does the measurement of travel distance start and where does it end if you do not have an exit but only an discharge into the public way in an unrated stairway?

Sounds like more spackling added to make it pretty but doesn't solve the root of the problem.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 11, 2012)

> Where does the measurement of travel distance start and where does it end if you do not have an exit but only an discharge into the public way in an unrated stairway?


It starts in the most remote point within that 6,000 sq ft dwelling and continues down the exit access stairs to the exit.

The 2012 has added and changed the definitions we are all have been using.

*EXIT.* That portion of a _means of egress_ system between the _exit access_ and the _exit discharge_ or _public way_. Exit components include exterior exit doors at the _level of exit discharge_, _interior exit stairways, interior exit ramps, exit passageways, exterior exit stairways_ and _exterior exit ramps and horizontal exits_


----------



## damstein (Jul 12, 2012)

My question of confusion is the code says 4 units per story not per stair served. The OP has 6 units on the second floor with 2 stairs serving 3 units each. Is it code compliant by a literal interpretation? If not would it be code compliant under the "intent" of the code. No more than 4 dwelling units can use the same exit stair

Think of the building as two buildings with 3 units per floor with a 2 hour fire barrier wall in between.  (As per mitted by local code)  Each half of the building is served by a single exit.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 12, 2012)

> Think of the building as two buildings with 3 units per floor with a 2 hour fire barrier wall in between. (As per mitted by local code)


I see you noted a local code ammendment. I believe the ICC would require a firewall not a fire barrier before it would be 2 separate buildings


----------



## brudgers (Jul 12, 2012)

damstein said:
			
		

> Think of the building as two buildings with 3 units per floor with a 2 hour fire barrier wall in between.  (As per mitted by local code)  Each half of the building is served by a single exit.


  Well, now you've got two stairs, so why put in a firewall?


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 13, 2012)

And the common path of egress section shouldn't come into play unless you have more than one exit.

Wrong - the common path of egress travel is always in play if there is only one exit.


----------



## rooster (Jul 13, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> And the common path of egress section shouldn't come into play unless you have more than one exit.Wrong - the common path of egress travel is always in play if there is only one exit.


*Definitions 1002 IBC 2009*

*COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL*

"That portion of exit access which the occupants are required to traverse before two separate and distinct paths of egress travel to two exits are available.  Paths that merge are common paths of travel.  Common paths of egress travel shall be included within the permitted travel distance."

At one point the OP said the below paragraph where he was asking if he could sub in common path of egress travel for single exit stories:

_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?_


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 13, 2012)

"Definitions 1002 IBC 2009

COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL

"That portion of exit access which the occupants are required to traverse before two separate and distinct paths of egress travel to two exits are available."

It is still a commmon path of travel, it is just in htis instance the common path of travel can be 125 feet in a sprinklered building.

This is very similar to the situation where the common path of travel can go from 75' in a Group B occupancy to 100' if the building is sprinkled.  Still a common path of travel, it can just be longer if sprinklers are installed.


----------



## rooster (Jul 13, 2012)

I must be missing something.

If someone came to you with a single exit 2nd story apartment with a travel distance over the allowed travel distance for a single exit second story apartment...you'd be ok wih them citing "common path of egress travel"?

I understand that this is not how the OP resolved this.  Instead he went to 2012 IBC where "Stories with One Exit" was revised.

I just don't understand how I'm wrong about the Common Path of Egress Travel.  The very definition of CPOET is that it's the single path before two paths are available.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 13, 2012)

Let me try this one more time.  Section 1014.3 is the Section that deals with common path of travel.  Charging language found there states that in all occupancies other than Groups H-1 / H-2 / & H-3, the common path of egress travel may not exceed 75'.  Right?

As with many other code sections, there are exceptions granted.  In this particular case, there are four exceptions granted.  Remember, just because there are exceptions, they are still under the heading of common path of travel.  They are exceptions to the basic requirements of the common path of travel.

In this case one of the exceptions, exception #4 specifically, allows the common path of travel in Group R-2 occupancies to be increased to 125' given certain circumstances.  It is still a common path of travel, it may just be lengthened if the building is a sprinkled building.  Instead of the common path of travel being 75' as required by the original language, it may now be 125' when the building is sprinkled.

It is still dealing with the common path of travel.  The code permits this.  Yes I would allow it if the building was a sprinkled building.


----------



## rooster (Jul 13, 2012)

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

So when do you use 1021.2 "Stories with One Exit"?


----------



## damstein (Jul 14, 2012)

rooster said:
			
		

> Thanks for taking the time to explain.So when do you use 1021.2 "Stories with One Exit"?


That was the question I had when I mentioned the two different travel distances in my earlier post???


----------



## rooster (Jul 15, 2012)

I typically use it when I'm considering having a story with one exit.


----------



## Big Mac (Jul 16, 2012)

In my experience, Table 1021.2 does not come into play very often as it is very limiting.  For example it would take a very small building in most cases to qualify.  However, the building would not necessarily need to be sprinkled to use this section.

If you will notice, for example the requirement for R-2 occupancies states that the distance referenced is a per floor travel distance.  Indicating that the travel distance is to an exit.  The exit could be a fire-rated vertical exit enclosure, or it could be the stairway exit at grade.  Also note that this exception can only be used for a three-story condition if the is sprinkled.  There is no such specified requirement in this part of the code that a two-story condition be sprinkled.

That is somewhat of a moot point because when there are more than three dwelling units, sprinklers are required unless separated with fire-walls.

You may have noticed that there are often conflicting elements in the code that sometimes makes use of some sections almost non-existent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 16, 2012)

> That is somewhat of a moot point because when there are more than three dwelling units, sprinklers are required unless separated with fire-walls.


Not in all jurisdictions. We do not require sprinklers if it is 8 dwelling units or less so it is good the ICC does not assume everything is srinklered in all sections.

I agree Table 1021.1 does not come into play very often but it is where you start if there is only one exit from a story.


----------

