Consulting-Specifying Engineer - May 2008 - (Page 56) Codes & Standards To stay or not to stay: egress and the I-Codes Following all major tragedies, code-making bodies are faced with numerous code change proposals; in the wake of Sept. 11, emergency egress took the lion’s share of the attention. BY GARY LEWIS, Chief Inspector, City of Summit, N.J. bout 30 years ago, the nation suffered a tragedy known as the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire, in which 165 club patrons lost their lives. As happens so frequently following a tragedy, fire codes were consequently strengthened to prevent such an event from recurring. Fast forward to the World Trade Center (WTC) bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, and then the events of September 2001. It is understandable that highrise occupants no longer wish to remain inside a structure in the case of an emergency. As the Final WTC Report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found, some WTC occupants received conflicting instructions during the incident regarding whether to evacuate or remain in place. As was the case following previous tragedies with large loss of life, the International Code Council (ICC) was faced with a number of building code change proposals after Sept. 11 from well-meaning parties looking to prevent similar occurrences. The ICC subsequently appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism Resistant Buildings to review the NIST study and evaluate its 30 recommendations for potential modifications to the ICC’s model codes to achieve a deliberate, measured response to the lessons learned. Needless to say, egress received the lion’s share of attention. The International Building Code (IBC) already has been modified (2007 Supple- A AT A GLANCE In the wake of Sept. 11, the International Code Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism Resistant Buildings. As a result of the committee’s efforts, the International Building Code was modified to require an additional stair, over and above the minimum required number of exits, in buildings taller than 420 ft. The committee also ruled that stairwells and exit paths must be marked with photoluminescent guides to help evacuees. ment) as a result of the committee’s efforts to require—for the first time ever—an additional stair in all super high-rise buildings (greater than 420 ft.) over and above the minimum required number of exits. The extra stair is necessary to address fire department counterflow and the potential for one or more of the other required stairs being compromised and unavailable as a result of an intentional act. Counterflow is the common scenario where downward occupant movement (egress) comes into direct conflict with upward emergency responder movement and equipment. Studies conclude that the typical 44-in.-wide stair is too narrow for effective side-by-side movement—imagine how much slower that travel speed is when facing fully geared firefighters and equipment coming up the stairs. “Compromised stairs” is a polite means to describe the possible destruction of one or more stair towers as part of an intentional act attempting to cause damage and loss of life. A second post-WTC achievement is a committee proposal that requires the marking of stairwells and exit paths with photoluminescent markings to help guide evacuees down multiple stair runs in potentially limited lighting. The committee now seeks to make this the first truly retroactive requirement for high-rise structures already in existence. The ICC also is considering a number of related proposals affecting high-rise and super high-rise building fire and life safety. The current methodology for determining 56 Consulting-Specifying Engineer • MAY 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.