ICC - International Code Council
 
Cart                                                                   
Skip to main content
 
About ICC

Your ICC Account

Email:
Password:
Bookmark and Share
Green Building Certification

Codes & Standards Discussion Forum 

Welcome to the ICC Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

The Code Council has revisited how best to provide an online, professional Discussion Forum and area within the website that has a sense of community – where Members and nonmembers can provide input and exchange ideas with their peers in the industry. The new Codes & Standards Discussion Forum does just that, as it allows Registered Website Users and ICC Members to discuss the I-Codes in an online community.

Members Area Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

Note to Nonmembers: If you join the ICC you can have access to important building safety information!

Members Area Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

As an ICC Member, you have access to the Members Area of the Codes & Standards Discussion Forum. Follow the link to discuss the Membership Councils and other benefits of being an ICC Member.


19 post(s) First 1 2 > Last
Search 
MIXED USE OCCUPANCY
This forum is under moderation. Your reply will appear when it is approved.
Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  jdk

Posts: 0

9/19/2001 2:01:00 PM

Table 3-B for your occupancy separation.

If A-2.1 or A-4 cannot be in a multi-story structure as far as Table 5-B goes.

It has a the potential of an assembly area even though you want it to be lesser. You may want to put the extra exits if you want to use this as a multi-purpose area someday.

Or follow "all others" in Table 10-A and post the maximum occupancy capacity of that area. And argue that it is just a tennis court same to what it was intentionally used before even when it was on the ground. Then call it an A-3 because your occupancy is less than 300.

But wait till others chime in.




[This message has been edited by jdk (edited 09-19-2001).]


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  Lou Marks

Posts: 0

9/19/2001 2:01:00 PM

When is the last time any of us has seen more than six people on a tennis court. Four playing, a ball person and the line judge. Possible volleyball could also be played, we then have a few more, up goes the figure, say we have six courts, we put temporary bleachers on four for a tournment, wow, I''ve got over 400 people here not 36. Best error on the side on safety unless you have and excellent fire inspection program and the owner request a modification for a reduce occupant load and proffers restraints. You have some wiggle room but you must issue a modification to the owner. Enforce the code and let him justify a lower number.


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  jdk

Posts: 0

9/19/2001 4:04:00 PM

Question: Would you include the tennis area over the roof as part of the building area even though it is open above?


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  DBK

Posts: 0

9/19/2001 8:33:00 PM

Thank you for the comments so far. I agree Lou Marks that we should error on the side of caution, but an occupant load of 1700(approx) seems excessive, To try and find a middle ground, I thought of dividing the tennis court area into to "uses" one for tennis play, and one area for bleachers for tournment play. This brings the occupant load closer to 470. BUT then do I get into occupancy separations per Table 3-B?


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  InspectorDude

Posts: 0

9/19/2001 9:53:00 PM

I think we have missed a point...S-4''s cannot be in a mixed occupancy building....


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  jdk

Posts: 0

9/20/2001 9:21:00 AM

Inspector Dude is correct especially mixing it with A occupancies. However, there is one particular exception in 311.2.2.2. But your mix does not apply to it. You cannot say that you are separating it by building because there is no such thing as Area Separation Floor.


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  Lou Marks

Posts: 0

9/20/2001 4:12:00 PM

I would agree that 470 is a reasonable occupant load. The point was that you cannot take it upon yourself to do it. Computer to the higher number, they ask for a modification, you grant it and everybody goes home happy.
There is such a thing as a floor separation assembly and it is in every code. The code requires a rated separation of x hours, it neither states wall or floor but and hourly rating which can be met by any assembly having that rating. The second possibility is that firewalls can be horizontal and well as vertical.
A roof can be occupied and we do not call it a floor or story.
One shall not get hung up on words but deal with intent.
As another option why not use 50 of gross area for exercise rooms & skating rinks & pools. I would think that this is a reasonal interpretation as the building offical shall classify it to the closes type of use.


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  The Enforcer

Posts: 0

9/20/2001 4:25:00 PM

Could the parking garage qualify as an S-3 occupancy?


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  jdk

Posts: 0

9/20/2001 4:33:00 PM

Lou,

It may be a roof but you will be enclosing it with high fences and therefore exiting must be consider. If occupant load will be assigned it is but right to assign an occupancy. What occupancy will you assign it? I believe that when 311.2.2.2 and table 3-B were mentioned that we are giving clear provisions of the code. The only way you could do it is creating another building. Can we separate two buildings by a horizontal assembly?

It is not a matter of play on words. I have tried arguing a horzontal AREA SEPARATION ASSEMBLY before. All the jurisdictions I have talked to would not agree because the intent of the code is to create buildings side-by-side and not one on top of the other. What if the lower building is burning, how will you be able to exit the people from the UPPER BUILDING? Are exit enclosures for this type of a structure discussed in the code at all? I may apply it to separating occupancies but not separating buildings. In this case it appears to be non-compliant to stack S-4 with something else unless allowed by 311.2.2.2.

[This message has been edited by jdk (edited 09-20-2001).]


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  The Enforcer

Posts: 0

9/20/2001 9:59:00 PM

UBC
This is not true. An A2.1 and an A-4 occupancy could exist in a multi-story structure per Table 5-B.

Originally posted by jdk:

....If A-2.1 or A-4 cannot be in a multi-story structure as far as Table 5-B goes....


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  jdk

Posts: 0

9/21/2001 9:33:00 AM

Enforcer:

Sorry for that statement. I stand corrected. You are correct. Thanks for picking that up. They cannot be in a multi-story building for non-rated buildings. That is as far as construction type is concerned. What was lately disputed here, however, were...

1. If S-4 can be mixed with other occupancies. I noted the table 3-B would not allow it except as provided in 311.2.

2. Area separation cannot be horizontal. You cannot build a building on top of another for the simple reason that once the lower building burns the upper building fails structurally as well. And this concept is never even discussed as an allowable alternative in the code.

As far as calling it an S-3 occupancy
DBK is obligated to show that it is not an open parking garage and that he must satisfy the definition for S occupancy division 3 as shown in 311.1

[This message has been edited by jdk (edited 09-21-2001).]


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  JAG

Posts: 0

9/21/2001 11:01:00 AM

An S-4 occupancy cannot be in a mixed occupancy building (except for S-3, very specific requirements 311.2.2.2). The building official shall classify the building per Section 301. In my view, parking level will be an S-3 occupancy, parking garage. The openings might allow elimination of mechanical ventilation per Section 1202.2. An occupancy separation shall be provided between the A occupancy and the S-3 parking garage below (relatively easy to obtain with concrete twin tee construction). I would accept the use of the occupant load factors for such similar uses as skating rinks or exercising rooms, and further address the spectator areas if bleachers are ever proposed. See also Section 1003.2.2.2.4 for outdoor areas.


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  jdk

Posts: 0

9/21/2001 1:20:00 PM

I think the parking area would classify as S-4 not an S-3 if you would read 311.9.2. Now if repair work will be done in it, then you can classify is as an S-3.


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  Lou Marks

Posts: 0

9/21/2001 3:55:00 PM

Here we go again. First let be clarify my position. I deal with BOCA & IBC, am also familiar with the SBCCI. As all three of them reconize horizonal fire seperation assemblies and fire walls my assumption is that the UBC has similar povisions.
As for how you do a horizonal fire wall it is quite simple. Fire walls generally have higher ratings than seperation assemblies, thus you rate the assembly to the higher requirement. Since the stairs penetrate the assembly you also go to the higher requirement. The supports to the upper building is independent of the supports for the lower building. Thus either building could be built or demolished without affecting the other.
You also limit the penetrations of the assemby to those permitted of a fire wall.
Example: I have a 4 story parking garage owner by one person who allowed another person to build a 5 story office building on top of it. Because I have a horizonal property line seperating the two structures the floor/ceing assembly between the 4th & 5th floor must be a party wall (which is a fire wall that occurs on a property line)
If this is not permitted under the UBC there is hope, IBC is on the way. You soon will have more flexability.


   

Re: MIXED USE OCCUPANCY By  jdk

Posts: 0

9/21/2001 4:13:00 PM

Hello!?? I do not know who between us is missing the point. There is a big difference between AREA SEPARATION and OCCUPANCY SEPARATION as far as the UBC is concerned.

Perhaps these will clear things up.

Horizontal = floors and ceiling

Vertical = Walls

Occupancy Separation = Horizontal (yes); Vertical (yes)

Area Separation = Horizontal (NO); Vertical (only)

S-4 w/ Other Uses (except 311.2) in one AREA or building using occupancy separations = NO

S-4 w/ other uses in other area or building using area separations = YES

Do you know why they only call it Area Separation WALLs and not floors or ceilings? Because they are always vertical!


[This message has been edited by jdk (edited 09-21-2001).]


   

19 post(s) First 1 2 > Last
Educode 2015
2015 I-Codes