| Author |
Message |
Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: rhinkle
Post Number: 106
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 06:49 pm: |    |
Need some help from the code experts out there. We are evaluating some existing stairs in a hosptial, some fairly new and some much older. Specifically per the NFPA Life Safety code. A.7.1.3.2.1(6)(b) talks about what can be in a stair. It does not mention anything about roof drains (the drains are routed out of the stair just below the deck). I can not find where in the code this would be prohibited. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Russ Hinkle |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 09:05 am: | |
As I recall, there is no problem with roof drain [also sprinkler risers, etc.] so long as the mandated clearances [min. width, etc.] for the stairs, landings, etc. are provided.
For example a retanguler landing has corners which lie beyond the minium width of the landing and drains could be located there. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 389
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 09:22 am: | |
While you can't route a roof drain leader through an elevator room or shaft, I'm not aware of restrictions on running them in stairwells; I see cast iron rain leaders in stairwells all the time. After all, the shaft is already open from top to bottom; it's not like it poses a fire hazard and there aren't any electrical safety concerns.
If the roof of the stair enclosure is rated, you'll need a rated firestop detail. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 10:03 am: | |
Under the IBC, there is no restriction, except as noted above. But the NFPA 101 does restrict what can penetrate an exit enclosure, and new drains is not one of them.
If the stair is existing and the penetration is existing, then it is permitted to remain, provided that the penetration is protected per Section 8.3.5.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED
Senior Member
Username: rich_gonser
Post Number: 33
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 11:08 am: | |
Here, we use the IBC modified to suit the whims of the California governance cognoscenti.
The basic rule is simple. Does it serve the exit and the exit only? Under that rule, you will have to enclose your pipes with a rated box to separate it from the exit. It's the old chapter 10 striking again…
Section 1022.4 is fairly clear. You have to enclose the pipes, if the project is in California.
To quote the CBC:
"1022.3 Openings and penetrations. Exit enclosure opening protectives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section 715.
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 and for egress from the enclosure.
Elevators shall not open into an exit enclosure.
1022.4 Penetrations. Penetrations into and openings through an exit enclosure are prohibited except for required exit doors, equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization, sprinkler piping, standpipes, electrical raceway for fire department communication systems and electrical raceway serving the exit enclosure and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 713. There shall be no penetrations or communication openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit enclosures."
In the past I have had to remove or box out electrical outlets on the outside face of the enclosure walls. The state fire marshals see to that.
NFPA 101 doesn't go that detailed. |
|
4specs.com Home Page