• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Any reason why IPE could not be used in heavy timber?

J

JPohling

SAWHORSE
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,685
Location
San Diego
California Building Code applies. Looking at a deck and shade structure design that is immediately adjacent but not attached to a 3 story Type II-B fully fire sprinklered building. Proposing heavy timber construction per note 19. of 603.1. Table 601 note c. allows heavy timber when rating is 1-hour or less. Type II-B A or B are 1 hour or less.

Would there be any reason that the species IPE would not be allowed for the construction of the deck and shade structure if all member sizes meet CBC 2304.11?

Is there something that would require that Heavy Timber be a more common species like Doug Fir/Larch, Southern Yellow Pine, etc?
 
Never seen a requirement other than size, but not a big HT guy....IPE certainly does not like to burn and that is what HT is all about....I theory if you could find a big enough balsa wood tree and make it work structurally you would be good.....(Do they still make those balsa wood planes I had when I was a kid?)
 
I just went through something similar, and while the HT canopy structure had a one hour rating in accordance with IBC chapter 6, it did not meet the definition of a limited combustible material per NPFA and we were required to install a dry sprinkler system under the HT canopies.
 
Tim Mailloux said:
I just went through something similar, and while the HT canopy structure had a one hour rating in accordance with IBC chapter 6, it did not meet the definition of a limited combustible material per NPFA and we were required to install a dry sprinkler system under the HT canopies.
Click to expand...
We do not have any issues adding sprinklers, preferably wet from the building system. Where did the NFPA requirement come from. code path.
 
this is going by memory, but NFPA 13 (8.15.7.?) allows for sprinklers to be omitted under canopies when the construction is non-combustible or limited combustible material.

NFPA 220 then defines what constitutes a limited combustible material which then refers you to ASTM E 84 testing.
 
IBC CH. 9 and NFPA 13 tell you where you don't need sprinklers....And as Tim said, there is a general gimmie for non and limited combustible (such as above a dropped ceiling)....FRTW meets limited combustible, but not non-combustible...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top