Does our elevated walkway need 2-hour walls?

[Methoselah]

We have a two (2) buildings 290 feet apart, and three years ago they were connected with an elevated (max height 31') covered walkway. A consultant recently said that the walls separating each of the connected buildings to the walkway should have a 2-hour rating and 90 minute doors at each end of the walkway.

However, only one end of the walkway has doors (rated 20 mins) and plans show a 1-hour smoke barrier. Other end has no doors. After completion of the walkway, both Building A and B were considered one building.

Construction of both buildings and the walkway are Type I, and everything is sprinklered. According to the plans, occupancies are either I-1 or I-1.1 for everything.

The walkway was built back then using state code based on UBC 1997. Today state code uses IBC 2006.

Question#1: Do we need to put 90 minute doors and 2-hour walls in the openings at each end of the walkway?
Question#2: Is the walkway considered an "addition?"
Question#3: Which code do I go by?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

 

[stookeyfpe]

A1: No
A2: Yes, it was considered an addition because it added additional building area and connected the two structures together.
A3: Unless you are doing a renovation, you should maintain the building to comply with the conditions of your certificate of occupancy, which is based the 1997 UBC. If you do renovations or modifications to the building, the requirements in the 2006 IBC are applicable.

Being a Group I occupancy, you may be required to comply with NFPA 101, especially if the institution is receiving Medicare or Medicaid dollars and has JCAHO accreditation. If this the case I would suggest a review of the Life Safety Code requirements for existing health care occupancies.

 

[pipesnpumps]

Q#3: Use UBC 1997 to determine if the existing construction is in compliance, since that was the governing code at the time it was built..

If NFPA 101 also applies and you ever plan to renovate it, just be aware it might have to be brought up to code for the existing occupancy requirements.

To answer Q#1 and Q#2 refer to UBC 1997 (and NFPA 101 if applicable)

at least thats what I would do.. You will probably get some better advice shortly.

 

[pipesnpumps]

I should correct my post, stookeyfpe was more correct. If NFPA 101 applies and it must have JCAHO accreditation, then it must meet existing requirements, regardless of whether or not its renovated. If not the deficiencies must be reported on a PFI (plan for improvement) yadda yadda..

 

[Methoselah]

Thank you for your replies. Yes, we are a healthcare occupancy. I was reading Section 8.2.1 of NFPA 101. At first glance, it seems to read if structures are of different construction types, then you "separate buildings" with a 2-hour fire barrier wall. Since all structures are the same type in our case, then the 2-hour wall does not apply.

However, after reading it again, I'm not so sure. It looks like the section only has to do with how you would rate and classify two connected structures of different types, and does not prescribe conditions when a 2-hour wall should be used.

// --------------------------

IF connected structures [are] of different types and a 2-hour wall exists, THEN
rating and classification = based on Separate buildings.

ELSEIF connected structures [are] of different types and no such separation is provided THEN
rating and classification = based on least fire resistive type of construction of the connected portions

// -------------------------
SECTION 8.2 CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPARTMENTATION
8.2.1* Construction. Buildings or structures occupied or
used in accordance with the individual occupancy chapters
(Chapters 12 through 42) shall meet the minimum construction
requirements of those chapters. NFPA 220, Standard on
Types of Building Construction, shall be used to determine the
requirements for the construction classification. Where the
building or facility includes additions or connected structures
of different construction types, the rating and classification of
the structure shall be based on either of the following:

(1) Separate buildings if a 2-hour or greater vertically-aligned
fire barrier wall in accordance with NFPA 221, Standard
for Fire Walls and Fire Barrier Walls, exists between the portions
of the building
Exception: The requirement of 8.2.1(1) shall not apply to previously
approved separations between buildings.

(2) The least fire-resistive type of construction of the connected
portions, if no such separation is provided
// ----------------------------

Hopefully, I am just misreading this and 8.2.1 is the answer I'm looking for.

If not, where would you think a code would say if connected structures are of different types, then you put in a 2-hour wall?

Thanks

 

[pipesnpumps]

The answer you seek is not simple to arrive at, and this sounds like your first in-depth read of NFPA 101. Not looking good. Consider seeking out some input from a local contact who is knowledgeable.

NFPA 101 issues
Not sure you can answer this, but are the two sides considered one occupancy, mixed occupancies, or separated occupancies per NFPA 101 definition? What is/are the occupancy(ies)?

Obviously the 1-hr smoke barrier implies they were not built to be separated occupancies.. just separate smoke zones. But your consultant says otherwise.. He says there must be 2-hour fire barrier between them.

That tells me he thinks they
a) should be separated occupancies per NFPA 101 definition. For healthcare that would be a 2-hour fire barrier since you can't take the 1-hour reduction for sprinklers, OR
b) he thinks that the building code requires 2-hour barrier.

The big question is which code is he citing for the 2-hour barrier?? NFPA 101 (for existing health care occupancy), UBC 1997, or IBC 2006?

No one here can answer that question for you.. You'd have to ask him.

If you want to know what kind of fire barrier is required by building code, you'd have to do a complete building code analysis for UBC 1997.

If you want to know what NFPA 101 requires, you'd have to do a complete code review as it applies to whatever NFPA 101 occupancies you have.. This would be easy to do, simpler than building code as you aren't concerned with the building's sq ft, only its use.

 

[stookeyfpe]

If this is in California, OSHPD has its own set of rules that are more restrictive than the 1997 UBC and 2006 IBC.