Announcement

Collapse

Plan Review Services

Advanced Code Group (ACG) has been performing plan review services for municipalities, architectural firms, third-party agencies, contractors and code officials for over 10 years with great success and response. We would be happy to assist you with your I-Code plan review needs, whether on a limited or full time basis. Plan review is performed by several experienced inspectors, certified as plan reviewers in different disciplines. We offer expedited plan review services electronically. This has been a well received process that eliminates reprinting of drawings. At the end of plan review, you have the option to accept an electronic stamp on the plans or submit the final, approved drawings for traditional stamping with return via FedEx. Why print, submit then print changes and submit again when this can be done just once?

We will always do our best to work within your budget and allotted timeframe. Feel free to contact our office at 1-877-223-4462 or email us at codes@inspectpa.com for further information or just to discuss your needs.

Thank you,

Jeff Remas
Advanced Code Group
www.InspectPA.com
See more
See less

2006 IBC Table 508.3.3

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2006 IBC Table 508.3.3

    I've been taught to use the above table a certain way. Generically meaning, for example, an "A" occupancy needs to have a 3-hour separation from an "H-3" occupancy if there are no sprinklers provided. This applies equally for "A"-to-"H3" as well as "H3"-to-"A". The em dashes in the remaining boxes do not imply that there are no separation requirements.

    However, I was told by a plans examiner that the left column (up-down) is for the larger of 2 occupancies, with the upper row (left-right) for the smaller. He gave an example of of a 2,000sf "B" occupancy not needing any separation from a 1,800sf "S-2" occupancy.

    From a life safety, common-sense standpoint, what I've been taught seems right. More so than what the plans examiner told me.

    Anyone have any thoughts?

    The only resource I found that backs up my understanding is the Code Commentary; however, it does so only by the facts provided in Example 1 (page 5-34).

  • #2
    The B and S-2 requires separation.
    Less is only more where more is no good. - FLW

    Currently using 2006 ICC code cycle.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ok...


      That wasn't the question though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Your plans examiner needs a refresher course, and also needs to read the commentary...

        Comment


        • #5
          The dashes are there because once upon a time printing errors made the rating different if you read vertical to horizontal than if you read horizontal to vertical.

          Using his logic, a larger H-1 wouldn't need to be separated from a smaller A or E.

          Comment


          • #6
            The dashes mean: try it the other way until you reach a 1,2,3,N or NP.

            GPES

            Comment


            • #7
              Rather than making the table painfully long, the editors decided that we should be able to realize that the separation is the same whether they list it as H-3/A or A/H-3.

              duh
              (PE)ach
              some days are just that.. :banghd

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by alora View Post
                I've been taught to use the above table a certain way. Generically meaning, for example, an "A" occupancy needs to have a 3-hour separation from an "H-3" occupancy if there are no sprinklers provided. This applies equally for "A"-to-"H3" as well as "H3"-to-"A". The em dashes in the remaining boxes do not imply that there are no separation requirements.

                However, I was told by a plans examiner that the left column (up-down) is for the larger of 2 occupancies, with the upper row (left-right) for the smaller. He gave an example of of a 2,000sf "B" occupancy not needing any separation from a 1,800sf "S-2" occupancy.

                From a life safety, common-sense standpoint, what I've been taught seems right. More so than what the plans examiner told me.

                Anyone have any thoughts?

                The only resource I found that backs up my understanding is the Code Commentary; however, it does so only by the facts provided in Example 1 (page 5-34).
                Non-separated occupancies are very limited and the example given is not allowed using Table 508.2

                508.3.3.4 Individual occupancies shall be separated from adjacent occupancies in accordance with Table 508.3.3.

                Have the examiner explain where that line of reasoning is in the code.
                ACCESS TO VIRGINIA CODES: 2009& 2012 Virginia Codes

                Comment


                • #9
                  VP is right. The plans reviewer needs a refresher course. Whoever was that instructor should be sent back to school.

                  There is no larger and smaller. If the option for separated mixed use is used (and that's an option since non-separated is also an option) then it's the separation between the two that matters.

                  This is no different from those "distance between" charts that are on those analog things called "maps."

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X