F-1 vs F-2 Ocupancy

[Glennman CBO]

2009 IBC. Apple packing plant at 86,000 sq ft. Originally submitted as an F-1, with contruction type II-A and fully sprinklered in order to get the building area, and fire area covered. There are no area increases for frontage, only sprinklers. Fine. Plans do not show 1 hr rating of primary and secondary frame, including roof construction. The packing plant is just that...packing apples into cardboard boxes, with no "processing".

Now the designer wants to call it an F-2, and reduce the construction type to II-B in order to use the sprinklers only for area increase, because they do not want to rate the primary and secondary frame (roof, etc), and, they have a mezanine closer than 20 ft to the roof.

The non-code commentary has an interp on the classification, as to when you would go from F-2 to F-1. It goes into the thicknesses of the cardboard, basically saying that if the cardboard is compressed paper instead of heavier cardboard typically used for apples, then it must be an F-1. However, if that is the case, then what company does not use corrugated cardboard for packing, say, wine bottles or ceramic dishes? In other words, it would appear that from the commentary's standpoint, almost nothing is an F-2.

One of my plans examiners is saying they agree that it can be an F-2 based on the wording in the code, but the other is leaning toward the commentary calling it an F-1.

I figured I'd get all your fine opinions on this. Thanks.

 

[cda]

Think you need to go by basic code and classify it

I would lean to f-1, at some point the boxes are empty

Also any "S" ???? In the building

 

[Glennman CBO]

I would tend to think that both F-1 and F-2 would contain a significant amout of cardboard. I believe the main difference between the two would be the process involved more that the contents. F-2 states that the issue is if "during...packaging, processing" etc, there is not a significant fire hazard. It is not a fire hazard to have a fire load, the hazard is in the chances of it catching fire. If processing involves cooking, heating, flying sparks, flammable liquids, etc., the chances of a fire occuring is far greater, than simply packaging non flammable products into boxes.

Just exploring the different schools of thought.

 

[Codegeek]

Based on what I'm reading in the 2009 IBC Commentary, I'd be inclined to classify it as an F-2. It sounds like they're placing a noncombustible product directly into a combustible container. If the apples were put in boxes, then placed into larger boxes, I'd say it's an F-1. It looks like the commentary is saying that one layer of combustible material can be an F-2 while those with more than one layer are an F-1.

 

[globe trekker]

Glennman CBO,

Is there a Fire Code Official involved in the classification process? They may allow a lower

classification based on the actual use of the building and its contents, afterall, it will be

them to respond to any type of fire event. Our FCO here has allowed lower classifications

based on their evaluation of the structure and its use.

FWIW, I would be leaning towards the F-2 as well, unless there are some additional

hazards not known or presented in the overall packing process.

.

 

[cda]

Also any "S" ???? In the building

 

[fatboy]

I would lean towards F-2, and as others have stated, it seems there should be some S area.

 

[Glennman CBO]

cda, (Also any "S" ???? In the building...) There are no rooms one would classify separately as "S". This is a large open structure and for the most part, it is all an F. They have other existing buildings on site that are S occupancies. They have a lunch room, rest rooms, and equipment mezanines.

There is no FCO involved, outside of myself. I'm leaning toward the F-2, since the "process" of packing apples into cardboard boxes doesn't involve a significant fire hazard.