Oregon Building Code Updates
May 2011
“The Code giveth, and the Code taketh away...” and I really can’t use what should follow that paraphrase, for those of you who are theologically inclined.“9. In other than occupancy Groups H and I, interior egress stairways serving only the first and second stories of a building equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 are not required to be enclosed, provided at least two means of egress are provided from both floors served by the unenclosed stairways. Such interconnected stories shall not be open to other stories.” 2003 IBC
These two Exceptions are gone, as well as Exceptions 4, 6 & 7. So, in terms of design flexibility you are left with Exception 1, which remains unchanged, but is very limiting:
1. In all occupancies, other than Group H and I occupancies, a stairway is not required to be enclosed when the stairway serves an occupant load of less than 10 and the stairway complies with either Item 1.1 or 1.2. In all cases, the maximum number of connecting open stories shall not exceed two.
1.1. The stairway is open to not more than one story above its level of exit discharge; or
1.2. The stairway is open to not more than one story below its level of exit discharge.
I can’t recall how long Exceptions have existed in the Code that have permitted open stairways serving two floors, regardless of Occupant Load. Unless my memory is mistaken [entirely possible], I’d say that such provisions have existed for at least the 25+ years that I’ve been doing Code stuff. Not any more.
This really sucks, especially since so many more commercial buildings are required to have sprinklers, and the number “1” shows up so often in Table 503 in the VB column. My background is in architecture and construction; I’ve always felt that the Code should serve design, rather than the opposite.
The deletion of the Exit Enclosure Exceptions finally corresponds to the definition of “Atrium” that showed up in the IBC- an opening between two or more stories; except for balconies and mezzanines. The UBC considered an Atrium to be an opening between two or more floor levels—a three story space.
404.1.1 Definition
ATRIUM. An opening connecting two or more stories other than enclosed stairways, elevators, hoistways, escalators, plumbing, electrical, air-conditioning or other equipment, which is closed at the top and not defined as a mall. Stories, as used in this definition, do not include balconies within assembly groups or mezzanines that comply with Section 505.This provision didn’t make a lot of sense as long as unenclosed stairways were permitted to serve three stories; but now makes the Code more consistent, though really annoying. It’s easy for me visualize more stringent enforcement of the Atrium definition-more vaulted spaces will now be considered Atria, with their accompanying mechanical provisions. For what it’s worth, I recently, successfully, argued that a second floor level hallway/eating area in a college is in fact a balcony, and that the food court is not subject to the Atrium provisions.
Continuation of the discussion, click here
In my March Code Update, I talked about continuous pink stuff on the outside of commercial buildings—as required by OEESC TABLE 502.2(1) BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS - OPAQUE ASSEMBLIES. I’ve been working with the COMCheck Energy Code software provided by the State, and have discovered that while the acres of exterior pink stuff are a requirement of the prescriptive Code provisions Section [502.2]; it isn’t necessarily a requirement of Section [502.1.3] Simplified Trade-Off Approach. In the buildings I’ve been looking at, the exterior pink stuff makes a negligible impact on the overall U-Value for the building. The Energy Code is heavily weighted toward openings, which is somewhat obvious. The addition of more ceiling insulation than the Code requires can also ‘buy’ U-Value in the wall assemblies.Should you happen to be working on structures in Washington, they have their own Energy Code. COMCheck can be calibrated to accommodate their requirements, however, it’s just about as easy to use their interactive Excel charts for calculating the total U-Value for a building.
For those of you with questions regarding the upcoming changes to the Accessibility Chapter of the OSSC:
In anticipation of this announcement [U.S. Department of Justice's adoption of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design], Oregon Building Codes Division (BCD) is working closely with stakeholders in the preparation of an amended version of the 2009 IBC Chapter 11. Oregon amendments are necessary in keeping with statutorily-driven accessibility requirements which provide for greater accessibility than the Federal standards. Consistent with the U.S. Attorney General’s implementation timelines noted above, BCD anticipates adoption of the amended IBC Chapter 11 with an effective date of January 1, 2012. This should provide ample time for training and required rule making.
While I don’t often deal with the ORSC these days, I should remind y’all that the Residential Code is changing soon. The State published the Permanent Rule adopting the 2011 ORSC; these rules and the code become effective July 1, 2011. Click Here for a “Highlights” summary of the changes.
MJ Arts is a State-licensed Plan Reviewer and Structural Inspector; and is available to assist you with your plan review needs. MJ Arts can provide you with timely plan review and Code interpretation information. For email information, contact:
marty@mjarts.com
Telephone/FAX/e-mail consulting services are available on an hourly, monthly or contract basis for architects, designers and construction professionals. Contact me for more information.