I have a project under the 2015 International Codes that is building onto an existing fitness center/gym. The existing building has an A-3 occupancy under 12,000 SF, but an occupant load over 300 people. The total fire area of this existing building is 22,300 SF. Also, the building is not sprinklered.

There is a new building going directly next to the existing building that will connect the two (they share a wall).

The new building is an aquatic center (pool and splashpad) with an A-3 occupancy under 12,000 SF, but an occupant load over 300 people. The total fire area of this new building is 13,000 SF.

The architect was originally trying to see if sprinklers could be removed from the scope (since there are none in the existing building), but based on the occupancy and square footage of the new building, sprinklers will be required (IBC 903.2.1.3). Since sprinklers are required in the new building, the architect is trying to determine what type of separation is required at the two buildings (fire partition, fire barrier, or fire wall) to avoid requiring retrofitting sprinklers in the existing building.

My take on it was to provide a "Fire Wall" to completely separate the buildings and not calling the existing plus new spaces a "single building" which could push us into requiring sprinklers throughout the existing building.

In addition, IBC 903.2.1 indicates that sprinklers "shall be provided throughout buildings and portions thereof used as Group A occupancies provided in this section" and sprinklers "shall be provided throughout the story where the fire area containing Group A-1, A-2, A-3, or A-4 is located and throughout all stories from the Group A occupancy to, and including, the levels of exit discharge serving the Group A occupancy." I then looked at the commentary on Group A-3 occupancies (903.2.1.3) which stated "an automatic sprinkler system is required throughout the fire area containing the Group A-3 occupancy, including the entire story where the Group A-3 occupancy is located..."

Based on 903.2.1 and the commentary on 903.2.1.3 it sounds like anything less than a "fire wall" used to completely separate the buildings, we would need to sprinkler the entire floor that the A-3 occupancy exists including the adjacent building since the are connected and share a wall. The architect's code consultant said I was wrong and that sprinklers are only required within the "fire area" and a "fire barrier" is sufficient.

In addition, IBC 903.1.1 indicates that if the code requires a building to be sprinklered then they are to be provided throughout. NFPA 13 (2019) also indicates that if a building is protected by a sprinkler system, then sprinklers are to be provided in all areas except for omissions indicated in the standard. I brought up this NFPA requirement and the code consultant said I was also wrong with this and that sprinklers are only limited to fire areas and aren't required to be installed throughout the building.

​I would appreciate any thoughts on this, thank you.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I am the third-party reviewer for an existing building that is a high-rise but does not have elevator pressurization.

If this were a new building, IBC (2021) Section 3006.3 would apply. But, this is an existing building, and the work qualifies as an Alteration Level 2. The primary engineer says that since the freight elevator is within the work area (although not being touched), per IEBC 801.3, the client will need to install either elevator curtains or a vestibule to keep smoke out per Section 3006.3.

I am of the opinion that since they aren't touching the elevator, I think the IEBC 803.1 is a stretch, and the fact that per Exception 5 of the Vertical Openings Section (803.2.1), the elevator isn't even required to be enclosed. (I do think it's a good idea though, and it's not like it's every floor, only their project space would get curtained.

This is purely a code required question, though.

Does an existing high-rise with Level 2 Alteration trigger smoke management here, even though the elevator is not altered?

Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Does a panoramic or free-standing elevator have to be in a fire-rated shaft if it's not penetrating a floor assembly?

IBC 3002.1 requires shaft enclosures per Sections 712 and 713 and opening protections for the shaft, but in this photo example of an elevator in an open atrium, I wouldn't think it's penetrating a floor slab, so it would be required to be in a shaft. I believe that the wall facing the floor would need to be rated accordingly, but not the rest of the shaft.

I'm pretty sure this makes sense, but I don't see any code language that would explicitly say this is right.

​Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

My company just completed design/build construction of a canopy structure over a courtyard between two restaurant buildings located on the east & west sides.

We assigned an Occupancy Classification of A-5. The structure is all steel, other than the roof construction is comprised of the following layers: 22 gauge steel B deck, 7/16 inch OSB, 24 gauge metal standing seam. The standing seam contractor asked for a solid substrate, instead of metal to metal (Standing Seam attached to the B Deck.

We agreed to add the OSB. We examined the 2018 IBC and assessed that we could use the OSB. Our assessment concluded that the entire structure could be built with wood framing without sprinklers (A-5, no enclosures, height 37ft, 6,090 sf, Type V(A) Construction).

The AHJ shut us down and told us we needed to remove the OSB (combustible material).

What we didn't know was that the City and developer executed a Covenant Agreement that stipulated the Canopy was an A-3 Assembly occupancy. This was arranged because the developer didn't want the exterior restaurant walls to be fire-rated because of the ease of movement from the restaurant to the courtyard.

As a result, the OSB needs to be changed to fire-retardant-treated plywood.

Was the original classification of A-5 occupancy (which could have been wood) canopy assembly an acceptable approach?

Picture below, showing the galvanized steel deck.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Subject: Two story convenience opening separation from corridors.

NFPA 101 (2021 edition) Section 8.6.9.1 permits convenience openings for two adjacent stories. But, these convenience openings shall be separated from corridors (requirement #3) and further states that separation should be by a smoke partition (requirement #5).

How do you define a corridor versus an open floor area or lobby per NFPA 101, since no definitions are given within the code?

Jurisdiction is required to follow NFPA 1 and NFPA 101.

For example, a building has a large assembly space on the second floor. All doors from the assembly space lead to a ~40'-0" wide circulation space (+200'-0" long in the other direction). To reach the building exit stair, occupants from the assembly room must traverse the 40'-0" wide circulation space. Within this circulation space is a ~20'-0" x 40'-0" vertical opening that connects the 1st and 2nd floor.

Should this circulation space be considered a corridor, and should the vertical opening be prohibited from being classified as a convenience opening without a smoke partition separating from the corridor?

Or is the 2nd floor space to be considered an open floor area, with exits immediately accessible in different directions (NFPA 101 7.5.1.1.1) and not consider it a corridor?

​The width of the circulation space seems too wide to be defined as a corridor but NFPA only provides minimum width requirements for corridors, and no maximum width for a space to be considered a corridor as far as I can determine.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

NFPA references are based on current editions. While NFPA 101, Section 30.3.1.1.4 (New Apartments) allows vertical penetrations to be protected with a 1-hour rating when sprinklered, NFPA 101, Section 30.5.2 requires HVAC equipment to comply with NFPA 90A.

According to NFPA 90A, Sections 9.1.3 and 6.8.3, a higher level of protection is required for shafts that penetrate more than four floors (2-hr fire rated and fire dampers).

Does the exception provided in NFPA 101 permit reducing the required fire rating to 1-hour for duct shafts, or does NFPA 90A take precedence?

I'm curious to hear different perspectives on this.

I can understand both sides of the issue but find it challenging to justify allowing a 1-hour fire rating for a vertical exit within a New Apartment while requiring a 2-hour fire rating for the duct shafts.

Thanks in advance.
​
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Imagine you have a 6-unit, true townhouse-construction building covered by the 2018 IRC under construction. It has an NFPA 13D sprinkler and a one-hour separation between units, but​ there is one common closet for the sprinkler riser and domestic water main. This closet is accessed only through a door on the exterior and is under the control of the landlord, not the tenant.

What is the code path to require any fire separation between that closet and the dwelling units?

There is no dog house off the side. The IRC only seems to call out separation between units, and even if you go into the IBC, it is not apparent.

Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I purchased a commercial condo recently. It’s been vacant and unfinished since 2013. It’s a shell, picture is below. It has 5 residential condos on top and 5 commercial condos on first floor, in a 3 story building. All residential units were sold and have been occupied since. One commercial unit was also built and has been occupied as a salon with a U & O.

There are no sprinklers, no fire room. They were going off of 2006 IBC code.

My architect prepared stamped plans with no sprinklers using the separated building scenario. It has a 2-hour horizontal separation, 3-5 hour vertical, no access to second floors. The plan was denied for sprinklers to be installed.

Now, I certainly understand safety, but it’s almost impossible to install now after 12 years.

Can you help me decipher mixed use B (1st floor) and R-3 (2nd and 3rd one unit)?

Is this approach allowed by code, or is the code official correct?

Is a self-contained fire area allowed to be its own building?

Please help, thanks.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

We have a storage building that is non-sprinklered, it only has fire alarm. The ceiling height in some areas of the building with storage of tires is up to 10-ft in height, and others up to 15-ft in height.

How many tires can be stored?

Is there a limit to the amount of storage?

Does storing on tread or on side matter?

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I have a project in the Miami area where there are some exterior glass panels that need to be 1-hour fire rated.

I specified the glass to be fire rated type, but it prices are coming back too high. The contractor is looking into an alternative of providing fire sprinkler protection on the inside face of the glass.

Is this a feasible idea?

The wall that the glass is part of requires the rating due to its being within 10' of some adjacent exterior glass.

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I’m wondering if you can help me on this one.

​I have a project with the detail below referencing the use of the U419 listed assembly, but with the drywall only on one side of the assembly. 

I asked for verification that the U419 assembly would permit this and he provided me with the attachment referencing section 5A. I don’t believe that was the intent for section 5A of the listing, but I can’t figure out what the actual intent is.

Is drywall on only one side of the assembly here correct?

Is it allowed anywhere?

It is something that has come up since there is a V497 listed assembly that puts both layers of drywall on one side of the wall, but my understanding has always been that it was used only on the interior side of exterior walls required only to be rated from the inside (IBC Section 705.5).

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. I appreciate your help.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe