# Vertical Opening



## Codegeek (Jul 18, 2012)

I have a multi-story building with mixed uses.  The first floor is retail, the second floor is mixed with retail, assembly (fitness center) and office.  The third floor, which is only 1/3 of the footprint of the other two floors is office.

The first and second floor are open to each other in the building of the building with a common entry which has a grand staircase as well as two elevators.   The stair is required for egress.

The person reviewing this project for permit is insisting that the two story opening is an atrium and does not qualify for a vertical opening.  I cannot find anything in the IBC which restricts the opening size of the vertical opening.  This project is being reviewed under the 2009 IBC.  Section 708.2 exception #11 allows for a floor opening created by an unenclosed stair if it complies with Section 1016.1 exception #3 or 4.  I believe we meet both exceptions #3 and 4 in 1016.1 as we have at least two means of egress in other areas of the building serving all floors.  Therefore I believe the stair can be an exit access stair and not have to be enclosed.  While the area in question is rather large, again, I cannot find any code language that limits the area of that opening.

I've looked in NFPA 101 and the best I can find there is in section 36.3.1 which allows for vertical openings in retail occupancies between any two floors and among the street floor and first adjacent floor with no size limitation on the opening.

I even called ICC to get a staff interpretation and was told I was correct.  However, I got sent an email this morning where the plans examiner said I had an attitude and had no clue what I was talking about.

Am I way off base here?  If so, please point me in a direction to help me better understand as I thought I understood this.

Thanks.


----------



## globe trekker (Jul 18, 2012)

Send an e-mail back to the plans examiner and kindly ask for an applicable

code section, so that you can become educated.

.


----------



## Codegeek (Jul 18, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Send an e-mail back to the plans examiner and kindly ask for an applicablecode section, so that you can become educated..


They're quoting Section 708.2 exception #7 and Section 404.1.1, insisting it's an atrium by definition.  However, the atrium provisions only apply if you cannot meet the requirements for the shaft through the exceptions, which is also noted in Section 404.1.


----------



## cda (Jul 18, 2012)

Cite the section to the plans examiner allowing the opening between floors, and ask him where it talks about size or references it back to atrium

Also ask if they call every opening between floors for stairs an atrium ???

Seek intelligent life?? Go up the chain


----------



## Codegeek (Jul 18, 2012)

I did cite the section and walked the plans examiner through the fact that it's not an atrium as the atrium provisions don't apply.  Instead, the examiner tells someone else in my office that I have an attitude and I don't know what I'm talking about.  The examiner is stuck on the definition of atrium and won't back down.

I'd like to go up the chain, but the building official outsources the plan review and takes the plan reviewer's response as gospel.


----------



## globe trekker (Jul 18, 2012)

Codegeek,

Is the unenclosed stairway "creating" an opening, or simply communicating /

navigating with the floor levels?

Since the term "vertical opening" is not defined in the IBC, I would probably

also classify it as an Atrium, as a more restrictive application. Also, in

Section 708.2, Exception # 2.1 gives some information as to the (possible)

limiting size: "2.1. Where the area of the floor opening between _stories_

does not exceed twice the horizontal projected area of the escalator or

_stairway_ and the opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced

sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Groups B and M, this

application is limited to openings that do not connect more than four _stories_."

FWIW, the term "shaft enclosure" is defined in Ch. 7. Shaft Enclosure - The

walls or construction forming the boundaries of a shaft.

I could be wrong, but your application sure appears to be an Atrium.  

.


----------



## Codegeek (Jul 18, 2012)

The unenclosed stair is creating an opening.  We would be exceeding the area by more than twice the horizontal projected area so that doesn't help.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 18, 2012)

2. A shaft enclosure is not required in a building equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 for an escalator opening or stairway that is not a portion of the means of egress protected according to Item 2.1 or 2.2.

2.1. Where the area of the floor opening between stories does not exceed twice the horizontal projected area of the escalator or stairway and the opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Groups B and M, this application is limited to openings that do not connect more than four stories .

Maybe your opening is to large and that is why he is saying it has to meet the atrium requirements.


----------



## Codegeek (Jul 18, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2. A shaft enclosure is not required in a building equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 for an escalator opening or stairway that is not a portion of the means of egress protected according to Item 2.1 or 2.2.2.1. Where the area of the floor opening between stories does not exceed twice the horizontal projected area of the escalator or stairway and the opening is protected by a draft curtain and closely spaced sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13. In other than Groups B and M, this application is limited to openings that do not connect more than four stories .
> 
> Maybe your opening is to large and that is why he is saying it has to meet the atrium requirements.


So my attempts to use Exception #11 to 708.2 are not valid?  Why not?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 18, 2012)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> So my attempts to use Exception #11 to 708.2 are not valid?  Why not?


I think it is valid but you have to convince the plans examiner ( or his boss) that it is.


----------



## Codegeek (Jul 18, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I think it is valid but you have to convince the plans examiner ( or his boss) that it is.


I've done some additional research since I posted this question and found a question in a 2006 IBC Nonstructural Q&A Application Guide with a question to poses the same scenario I presented.  According to the answer provided, the exception to comply with the exit access requirements for the open stair is correct in the scenario presented.  Unfortunately, the BO takes the PE's position as always being correct so even if I am correct, I'm fighting a losing battle if the PE won't accept it.


----------



## High Desert (Jul 18, 2012)

First, an atrium is a design option, not a requirement. Second, 1016.1 permits unenclosed stairways serving the first and second stairways. A shaft is not required. Remember, they moved the unenclosed stairway provisions from vertical exit enclosures from 1020 to exit access travel distance in 1016. You can't make someone design it as an atrium. If there is an opening connecting 3 stories or more, you can require them to show if they are designing it as a shaft or an atrium. I completely agree with codegeek.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 18, 2012)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> I did cite the section and walked the plans examiner through the fact that it's not an atrium as the atrium provisions don't apply.  Instead, the examiner tells someone else in my office that I have an attitude and I don't know what I'm talking about.  The examiner is stuck on the definition of atrium and won't back down.    I'd like to go up the chain, but the building official outsources the plan review and takes the plan reviewer's response as gospel.


  Make an appointment with the Building Official. Ask that the city attorney attend.


----------



## cda (Jul 18, 2012)

Plus there has to be an appeals process

Once again do they call every situation like this an atrium????

No matter what size?????


----------



## Codegeek (Jul 18, 2012)

Thank you all for your feedback.  This helps our argument in our response letter.


----------



## lunatick (Aug 10, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Make an appointment with the Building Official. Ask that the city attorney attend.


Think in this scenario, you should have another in your corner.

Whether in person or not.

1. Find out if any of the elected officials dislike the BO. Introduce your problem with them and invite them to the meeting.

2. Contact the local Chamber, find out who may have some influence here.

3. Seek an interpreation from the State, ICC, or a Plan Examiner that may be involved as an expert witness (hopefully to impress the attorney)

In the end, what is your goal.

To be allowed to do what the code states.

Or to improve the BO (perhaps by subtraction) this community.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 14, 2012)

Atriums were very confusing in the inception of the IBC. They had (in 2000) required smoke control systems in two story atriums initiially.

I am willing ot bet the plans examiner has learned information a few code cycles ago and has not had a class that centers on this section of the code since. Update classes are great, but they don't always go into the nuts and bolts of code changes and the effects thereof....


----------

