Recreation centers and building codes: Then and now

by Erik Missio | June 2, 2016 4:07 pm

by Christopher Rollhaus, AIA, LEED AP, and Robert Neu, AIA, LEED AP

Over the past two decades, the design of recreation and assembly buildings has undergone numerous changes, brought about by everything from aesthetic trends and technology advances to demographic shifts and new understanding about occupant comfort and user experience. Another major factor has been ever-evolving building codes. This article touches on three revisions having the greatest impact on Recreation (Type A-3) and Public Assembly (Type A-4) structures:

• accessible seating dispersion;
• egress requirements; and
• the ‘20-foot Rule.’

Seating dispersion

When the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted into law, it was impossible for architects, seating manufacturers, and facility owners to fully understand the requirements for compliance because the law did not include guidelines for enforcement. Local building authorities were reluctant to enforce or rule on ADA because it was a civil rights statute.

Initially, ADA accessible seating in athletic performance venues was distributed primarily on the floor at court level. One of the first major challenges to this seating distribution came from the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), which filed a lawsuit five years after the act’s passage. The lawsuit maintained a wheelchair-bound person could not see over standing spectators. The landmark court decision in favor of PVA forever changed the design of accessible seating in assembly buildings. Prior to this ruling, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provided no clarification on the distribution requirements for wheelchair locations in assembly buildings.

While Section 4.33.3 of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) referred to lines of sight, no specific reference was made to seeing over standing patrons. The courts found the MCI Center (now Verizon Center) in Washington, D.C., was non-compliant in the quantity of wheelchair and companion seats, and in having proper sight lines that would enable a wheelchair user to view the play area from behind standing patrons. This case, along with a subsequent related one, set the precedence for the prevailing ADA seating requirements.

Egress requirements

Egress requirements for Type A-3 and Type A-4 assembly buildings were unchanged from 1987 to 2009. The International Building Codes (IBC) provided a formula for calculating the number of doors and stairs required to exit the occupancy load from buildings with sprinkling systems. In 2009, the code was revised to require the same number of egress doors and stairs formerly required in non-sprinklered buildings. The new code requires larger stairways and more exit doors for the same number of occupants.

Complying with these requirements can be pricey, especially in a facility that contains a recreation court (A-3 Assembly) and a performance court (A-4 Assembly). The Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) may count the occupancy of these spaces simultaneously. By combining the exiting requirements of two large-volume spaces with high occupant loads, the AHJ can force designs that sacrifice valuable program space in exchange for stairwells, elevators, and other means of egress. The table below illustrates the impact of this change for an occupancy load of 1500 people.

2006 IBC
	Corridor	Doors	Stairs
Requirement per person	0.15 in.	0.15 in.	0.2 in.
x 1500 people	225 in.	225 in.	300 in.
Total requirements	18.75 ft	18.75 ft	25 ft
Unit requirements	18.75-ft wide corridors	seven doors @ 36 in. wide	four stairs @ 6.25 ft wide

2009 IBC
	Corridor	Doors	Stairs
Requirement per person	0.2 in.	0.2 in.	0.3 in.
x 1500 people	300 in.	300 in.	450 in.
Total requirements	25 ft	25 ft	37.5 ft
Unit requirements	25-ft wide corridors	nine doors @ 36 in. wide	four stairs @ 9.38 ft wide or six stairs @ 6.25 ft wide

Occupancy loads are calculated by dividing the space to be occupied by area per person. For example, the 2009 IBC calculates the occupancy load for a floor area with moveable chairs at 0.65 m² (7 sf) per occupant. The calculation of occupancy load is impacted by whether patrons are standing or seated, and in what type of chair they are seated.

The 20-foot Rule

For 25 years, the prevailing interpretation made by design professionals and building officials was that building fire protection codes excluded roof structural members and decking 6.1 m (20 ft) or more above any floor. This interpretation allowed designers to create open and light roof structures in field houses, recreation courts, performance courts, and natatoriums.

Additionally, building officials would normally grant a variance to allow the exposed structure of a jogging track suspended above the gymnasium floor. Even though the track surface was considered a floor, the track was constructed with non-combustible materials; it was sprinkled on the underside; it contained no concealed spaces, and it was highly visible. Local officials would normally grant a variance to allow the roof structure above the jogging track to remain unprotected for the same reasons the jogging track variance was allowed.

When the 2009 IBC was published, the wording for fire-resistance rating requirements was slightly changed. Initially, the wording did not appear to have substantial impact, but the accompanying commentary addressing the new requirements clarified the intent of the 20-ft provision applies only to roof construction and secondary members, and not to primary members of the structural frame. This means the main roof trusses, or beams, must now be protected from fire via fireproofing or, if allowed by the AHJ, fire modeling could be presented to prove fireproofing is not required.

These code revisions arose from the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse; they are aimed at increasing the fire resistance of structures, especially taller structures, so they can be more easily evacuated in emergencies. Even though this change occurred in the 2009 IBC, it was not immediately widely enforced due to lack of awareness on the part of code officials. Recent increased enforcement of this fire code revision is having significant impact on construction cost and aesthetics.

Cost

If the architect and owner want to achieve a light and airy ceiling structure, then the primary structural members have to be coated with an intumescent coating that swells up under heat and protects the steel from damage for an established time. Prices can vary, but there is an additional cost to the project.

The additional cost for intumescent coating of the primary roof steel of a typical three-court gymnasium is about $5.50/sf. The additional cost for intumescent coating of the primary roof steel for a 1670-m² (18,000-sf) three-court gymnasium, therefore, is about $97,000.

If spray-on fireproofing is used, the cost is lower, but the less-attractive appearance of fireproofing may trigger other expenses to conceal the visually unappealing material.

Aesthetics

Without adding significant cost to the project, a light, airy and open gymnasium structure is no longer achievable. From the standpoint of this article’s authors, there does not appear to be a well-defined reason for the definition changes in the 2009 IBC. In some jurisdictions, such as the Governing Building Authority in the State of Virginia (B-Com), the use of fire modeling is allowed. This provision permits a computer simulation of a fire, and its predicted path and reaction to the space. The cost of modeling ranges from $30,000 to $70,000; in most cases, the modeling shows that fire in a Type A-3 or A-4 space does not heat the steel to a temperature that compromises its strength before the required period of one hour.

At the date of this publication, the code wording for high ceiling spaces continues to be interpreted differently—therefore, it is essential architects review all interpretations made by the local AHJ.

Christopher Rollhaus, AIA, LEED AP, is a senior associate and lead project architect for Hastings+Chivetta Architects. With more than 30 years of experience, he oversees projects in terms of development of construction documents for educational, recreational, retail, and commercial facilities. Rollhaus is fully versed in computer-aided drafting and design (CAD), building information modeling (BIM), and current building conditions. He is the firm’s turf expert, and has co-authored an article on the new generation artificial turfs being used on today’s athletic fields. Rollhaus can be reached at crollhaus@hcarchitects.com[1].

Robert Neu, AIA, LEED AP, is an associate and project architect for Hastings+Chivetta. With nearly 20 years of experience developing architectural drawings for collegiate clients across the country, he is experienced at creating in-depth and detailed project documentation. Neu is skilled at integrating the work of designers and engineering consultants to achieve clients’ goals for their facility. He can be reached at rneu@hcarchitects.com[2].

Source URL: https://www.constructionspecifier.com/recreation-centers-and-building-codes-then-and-now/

---