2009 IBC, pedestrian walkways


per 2009 IBC, section 3104.5
"Exception: The walls separating the pedestrian walkway from a connected building and the openings within the 10- foot (3048 mm) horizontal extension of the protected walls beyond the walkway are not required to have a fire-resistance rating by this section where any of the following conditions exist:

exception 3, Buildings are on the same lot in accordance with Section 503.1.2."

so i can read this exception two different ways. first, walls are not rated if they are on the same lot. or second, if the building can meet the area limitations of the code, they can be considered as one building, and therefore no fire separation is required.

the first doesn't make sense, as the whole idea is to create a separation. but the second doesn't make sense either, because if one considers this as one building, then the pedestrian walkway is considered as part of the building.

help? thanks!
Original Post
to follow up, i talked to a ICC staff person about this question. he said it was the latter, that if the two buildings are considered as one, then no separation between the pedestrian walkway is required where it meets the buildings.

i asked why they had the exception here, when they already had it at the beginning of the overall section. because if it is one building, then the entire section would not apply. he agreed it didn't make any sense to him as well.

so there it is. have fun!
they wrote the code, but they say it doesn't make sense

but every design professional in the country is supposed to understand it and be liable for non-conformance (otherwise legally negligent)

so are they going to issue a 'correction'?

anyone see a problem with our current system where legally binding codes are written by people who admit it doesn't make sense as it was written???
mike, i gather you are referencing recent discussion re what you know or don't know...

so... you know NOW re this particular code section... and if you are asked in deposition or trial, you would have to say you knew... or somebody will drag out this thread to show you knew and impeach you with it

this may be a poor individual example with limited impacts or application, but the principal applies across the board

Add Reply

Likes (0)