B, S-1 and M separations w/sprinklers

[Hyrax4978]

I am working on a project inherited from someone else. Needless to say i can not just call them to ask the question. LOL
Its a 30,000 SF new construction consisting of B, S-1 and M fully sprinklered. The previous designer had a 1 hr separation between the uses. I don't see where this is required based on "N" listed on the separation of occupancies and sprinklering the building to accommodate Chapter 9.
Am I missing something?

 

[cda]

Don't sound like it. Some people hang on to old codes, and some people over design, which is nice sometimes.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

I am working on a project inherited from someone else. Needless to say i can not just call them to ask the question. LOL
Its a 30,000 SF new construction consisting of B, S-1 and M fully sprinklered. The previous designer had a 1 hr separation between the uses. I don't see where this is required based on "N" listed on the separation of occupancies and sprinklering the building to accommodate Chapter 9.
Am I missing something?

no separation is required per section 508.4 of the CSBC

 

[steveray]

S2 requires a separation from the more hazardous B.....Not S1

 

[Hyrax4978]

So if the S1 does not need to be separated from the B or M uses. How does the storage room over 100 SF play in. One could argue that would trigger the rating at the S1 area.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

The storage room over 100SF thing is a CT amendment and it’s under incidental use.

 

[steveray]

If there is an S1 use (nonsep). then it is not "incidental"..IMO

 

[Hyrax4978]

That makes sense, not calling it incidental. Good point.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

I see the building is fully sprinklered. Under the incidental use provisions a storage room over 100sf not needs to be ‘construction capable of resisting the passage of smoke” when sprinklers are in play. Has to be 1 hour rated with no sprinklers.