-
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
Classifying multiple buildings as one
- Thread starter Mech
- Start date
Builder Bob
Sawhorse
code "The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. " The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building (i.e sprinkler requirement for example) shall me applicable to each building.......
In other words, if it would be required for the footprint of the newly combined aggregate building, it (the code provisions) would be required for each building. The only thing that 503.2.1 does in reality, is to allow you to remove fire protection ratings for exposure for multiple buildings if they could have been built as one building.
In other words, if it would be required for the footprint of the newly combined aggregate building, it (the code provisions) would be required for each building. The only thing that 503.2.1 does in reality, is to allow you to remove fire protection ratings for exposure for multiple buildings if they could have been built as one building.
globe trekker
Registered User
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,739
Which way is the "more restrictive" in this application?
.
.
Builder Bob
Sawhorse
kilitact - read section 102.1 ------- The definitions of a fire area are a general requirement, the consolidation of all buildings into one common aggregate building is specific..... where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable.
( The issue isn't about the most restrictive as the purpose of this code section is to allow you to build multiple buildings on the same lot as if it was one building.
( The issue isn't about the most restrictive as the purpose of this code section is to allow you to build multiple buildings on the same lot as if it was one building.
Builder Bob
Sawhorse
The definition of fire area is specific to defining fire area design requirements and the code sections to go to. Chapter 9 also has specific language has to when and where they are required, nothing general about it.Builder Bob said:
jpowell
Bronze Member
Hi guys, I haven't posted much, but have been lurking.
To the original question, I believe the designer has a choice to either consider both new & existing bldgs as one building, or to have the new bldg assume a fire distance and rate the exterior walls accordingly. Either way there will be different consequences for how the code is applied.
Regarding the sidebar discussion on multiple buildings on one lot:
I agree with Builder Bob here. The "two or more buildings on one lot" are to be considered one building. I'll break it down how I follow it in the code. Under 705.3 it is made clear:
Chapter 7 - Fire and Smoke Protection Features
SECTION 705 EXTERIOR WALLS
705.1 General. Exterior walls shall comply with this section.
705.3 Buildings on the same lot. For the purposes of determining the required wall and opening protection and roof-covering requirements, buildings on the same lot shall be assumed to have an imaginary line between them.
Where a new building is to be erected on the same lot as an existing building, the location of the assumed imaginary line with relation to the existing building shall be such that the exterior wall and opening protection of the existing building meet the criteria as set forth in Sections 705.5 and 705.8.
Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are of different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction.
This exception is specific to exterior walls and opening protection within those walls. If you have assumed these portions as one building, then there would not be exterior wall protection between "itself", and there would be no imaginary line between them.
To the original question, I believe the designer has a choice to either consider both new & existing bldgs as one building, or to have the new bldg assume a fire distance and rate the exterior walls accordingly. Either way there will be different consequences for how the code is applied.
Regarding the sidebar discussion on multiple buildings on one lot:
I agree with Builder Bob here. The "two or more buildings on one lot" are to be considered one building. I'll break it down how I follow it in the code. Under 705.3 it is made clear:
Chapter 7 - Fire and Smoke Protection Features
SECTION 705 EXTERIOR WALLS
705.1 General. Exterior walls shall comply with this section.
705.3 Buildings on the same lot. For the purposes of determining the required wall and opening protection and roof-covering requirements, buildings on the same lot shall be assumed to have an imaginary line between them.
Where a new building is to be erected on the same lot as an existing building, the location of the assumed imaginary line with relation to the existing building shall be such that the exterior wall and opening protection of the existing building meet the criteria as set forth in Sections 705.5 and 705.8.
Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are of different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction.
This exception is specific to exterior walls and opening protection within those walls. If you have assumed these portions as one building, then there would not be exterior wall protection between "itself", and there would be no imaginary line between them.