• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

13R or 13D

I don't think I can go the the IRC and call the R side a 1 or 2 family Dwelling if it's attached to a B. If I could they could use 13R.

903.3.1.3 says 1 & 2 family dwellings can use 13R, but there is no defintion of 1& 2 family dwellings in the IBC.
 
Because the code does not require you to use common sense, you can always make the most unreasonable interpretation possible and hide behind a shield of bureaucracy while making people jump through hoops for your amusement.
 
Effective Use of the International Building Code

.........The IBC applies to all occupancies, including one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are not within the scope of the IRC. The IRC is referenced for coverage of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses as defined in the Exception to Section 101.2 and the definition for "townhouse" in Chapter 2. The IBC applies to all types of buildings and structures unless exempted. Work exempted from permits is listed in Section 105.2.

This is clearly a one family dwelling R-3 under the IBC.(It's attached) If you separate it from the B with a true fire wall with no openings then I might agree (although it's attached) it is a separate building and the 13D would be applicable and the B would not need to be sprinklered. If it is not a true firewall then a full NFPA 13 system is required per Table 508.4
 
The reason to get hung up on it is because even before you see the plans they are calling for a ruling on which standard they have to use.
 
If you have stacked dwelling units with each stack separated by a true fire wall are you telling me you could use 13D?
 
As already stated, the IRC applies only to DETACHED one- and two- family dwellings and townhomes. The described residential unit is not detached, so this is an IBC structure.

In 13D, the definition of dwelling also specifies that it is DETACHED, except townhomes separated by fire-resistive assemblies. As already established, the described residential unit is not detached, and is not seperated from another townhome, so the installation standards of 13D do not apply.

The correct standard for the sprinkler installation in the described residential unit is 13R. I'd be paying extremely close attention to the plan for the firewall.
 
It is the "detached" part of detached one & two family dwelling that is the prolem. I don't think a fire wall that makes it into a separated building makes it detached. Don't get me wrong I wish they could use a 13D system and was trying to see if would work. I will tell them that they can go to the appeal board. I would like if someone could prove to me that separated by a fire wall also means detached. IBC 415 has a definition of a Detached Building: "A separate single-story building without a basement or crawl space, used for the storage or use of hazardous materials and located an approved distance from all other structures". This doesn't help much but it does say somthing about a "distance" between buildings.
 
The code doesn't say that a firewall creates a detached building. The 415 definition is very specific in scope to H occupancies, and doesn't apply here. A more relevant section to the discussion is Section 201.4, stating "Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies." Look up "detached" in any dictionary and you'll have all the proof you need to justify your position. You're in the right, here. Don't feel bad about it.
 
This reminds me of code officials who classify any building with masonry walls and wood truss roof as Type III and then want to enforce the fire ratings.
 
Unlike your anecdote, my position here is very clearly based on the code (as you requested). I have provided the citations to support my position. If you have a code-based counter argument, then I'm all ears.
 
A mixed occupancy does not create an attached structure. Attaching buildings to each other creates an attached structure.

at·tached [uh-tacht]

–adjective

1. joined; connected; bound.

2. having a wall in common with another building ( opposed to detached): an attached house.
 
Other than in your imagination, how exactly does a mixed use building containing an R3 and B occupancy become two buildings?
 
A mixed use building containing an R3 and B occupancy becomes two buildings when a fire wall complying with IBC 706 is constructed between them.

The OP is not discussing a mixed use building. It is discussing two buildings separated by a fire wall. This does not create detached buildings. It creates attached buildings, one an R3, one a B.
 
Isn't a sepatate building considered non attached? How can it be attached and a separate building at the same time?
 
Glennman CBO said:
Isn't a sepatate building considered non attached? How can it be attached and a separate building at the same time?
Click to expand...
IBC 503.1.2 Buildings on same lot. Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the building height of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations of Table 503 as modified by Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.
 
503.1 General.

The building height and area shall not exceed the limits specified in Table 503 based on the type of construction as determined by Section 602 and the occupancies as determined by Section 302 except as modified hereafter. Each portion of a building separated by one or more fire walls complying with Section 706 shall be considered to be a separate building.

In-order to be a portion of a building it would have to be attached first.
 
Isn't a sepatate building considered non attached? How can it be attached and a separate building at the same time?
Click to expand...
Example:

I can build a one-family dwelling, a fire wall, a retail establishment, another fire wall, a two-family dwelling, a fire wall, a restaurant, a fire wall, another one-family dwelling, a fire wall, and a movie theater. Each would be considered a separate building, even though they are attached. I can't build the one- and two-family dwellings per the IRC in this instance, because the IRC would require them to be detached.
 
Effective Use of the International Building Code

The International Building Code® (IBC®) is a model code that provides minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare of the occupants of new and existing buildings and structures. The IBC is fully compatible with the ICC family of codes, including: International Energy Conservation Code® (IECC®), International Existing Building Code® (IEBC®), International Fire Code® (IFC®), International Fuel Gas Code® (IFGC®), International Mechanical Code® (IMC®), ICC Performance Code® (ICCPC®), International Plumbing Code® (IPC®), International Private Sewage Disposal Code® (IPSDC®), International Property Maintenance Code® (IPMC®), International Residential Code® (IRC®), International Wildland-Urban Interface CodeÔ (IWUIC®) and International Zoning Code® (IZ®)......

The IBC applies to all occupancies, including one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that are not within the scope of the IRC. The IRC is referenced for coverage of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses as defined in the Exception to Section 101.2 and the definition for "townhouse" in Chapter 2. The IBC applies to all types of buildings and structures unless exempted. Work exempted from permits is listed in Section 105.2.

The IBC does not use the term "detached" in their requirement for a 13D system in a one and two family dwelling yet a previous post stated "detached" is in the 13D standard for describing a one and two familiy dwelling. Don't you just love the consistency in the codes :banghd

[F] 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems.

Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D.
 
permitguy said:
A mixed use building containing an R3 and B occupancy becomes two buildings when a fire wall complying with IBC 706 is constructed between them.The OP is not discussing a mixed use building. It is discussing two buildings separated by a fire wall. This does not create detached buildings. It creates attached buildings, one an R3, one a B.
Click to expand...
OK so here is the brilliant logic being applied.

If the occupancies are separated by a fire barrier, protecting the entire building with a 13D system complies.

However, if a much higher level of separation between the occupancies is provided by a fire wall - then the sprinkler system requires an upgrade to 13R - including flow and tamper switches and continuous monitoring (not to mention a separate supply, wye's and everything else). Given that the system is on a well, a fire pump will be needed along with the regular inspections, etc.

If only hydrogen could be the most common element.
 
If the occupancies are separated by a fire barrier, protecting the entire building with a 13D system complies
Click to expand...
No a fire barrier would be a occupancy seperation and the footnotes to Table 508.4 would require a full NFPA 13 throughout the entire building

Table 508.4

footnotes

S = Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.

NS = Buildings not equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.
 
OK so here is the brilliant logic being applied.
Click to expand...
There is literally nothing in the text you quoted that would support the "brilliant logic" of the conclusions you tried to draw from it.

A fire barrier would render this one building with a group R fire area, and sprinklers would be required throughout. Some will say 13R for the R-3 and 13 for the B. Some will say 13 throughout. I'm not going there for the purposes of this discussion.

The greater protection of a fire wall would render this two buildings, albeit attached, and allowing the R-3 to be sprinklered in accordance with 13R. The B would require no sprinklers at all.

Nothing I have typed here suggests anything different than the position I just laid out. I have specifically stated - with code references - that 13D is not a consideration under any circumstances in the situation described in the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top