Type I or II Construction Declared Type V

[jar546]

I see this a lot lately, where a building is all CMU, grade and tie-beams, concrete flat roof, steel studs ,etc, but the architect declares it is Type V because the height and square footage allow it. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My view is that it's dumb, but I don't think the code expressly prohibits classifying a structure as a type of construction that's a lower hazard. I've seen it -- when I do, I usually flag the owner to ask if that's what they really want to do.

We had one like that a couple of years ago. The structure was a pre-engineered metal building, to be used as a warehouse. It was declared as Type V-B construction. I called the owner to suggest that he classify it as Type II-B, and he said he intended to build offices in one portion and his carpenter assured him it would be much cheaper to do that in wood. Okay, we permitted it as Type V-B.

And then a couple of years later he came back and wanted to put on an addition that would double the size of the building. Well, no, now you can't do that. You could have as Type II-B, but not as V-B. So he had to build the "addition" as a free-standing building with an appropriate fire separation.

 

[RLGA]

“602.1.1 Minimum requirements. A building or portion thereof shall not be required to conform to the details of a type of construction higher than that type which meets the minimum requirements based on occupancy even though certain features of such a building actually conform to a higher type of construction.”

If it meets the requirements for Type V construction, it is permissible. Thus, if a building complies with the height and area requirements for Type VB but complies with the material requirements for Type IIB, it is permitted by the code to allow the applicant to classify the building as Type VB construction.

 

[jar546]

I first came across this in Florida about six years ago when we had a new apartment complex built with different four story apartments in a new 564 unit development. Every aspect was poured concrete, including the roof, and there was no wood involved with any aspect of the structure. They declared it a type V. But this was their way of using NM cable throughout the building except for common areas.
It was the first time that I saw tunnel form or maybe you call it box form construction. I have not seen this method since.

 

[steveray]

Yep...a bunch of gimmies in the code for Type V stuff so as long as H&A work....why not?

 

[Sifu]

I tend to think it's OK to use type V if it fits, even if the materials and methods would make it appear to be II as long as you don't think you'll ever need it to be type II in the future.

I have been involved with a few "reclassifications" on older buildings where they wanted to create occupancies that put a type V outside the allowable areas. They have hired consultants to comb through the building to prove it could actually be a type II. Never pleasant, and I can't recall one ever being successful. Many times I can't get the DP's to correctly identify the existing classification, a lot come with qualifiers such as "believed to be type xxx", or "to be confirmed". Many times a plan is reviewed as type II then a diligent inspector comes back and reports it is NOT type II. That's fun.

I often do a search of previous permits when I get a commercial remodel to see how a building has been classified in the past vs. what they claim today. I usually find more than one permit with different classifications. When in doubt I go with type V, then they can prove otherwise.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Big box stores do it all the time. Type IIB construction and label it Type VB unlimited area construction