• 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

Dazed and confused

P

peesncues

Registered User
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Colorado
Occupancy separation question-

2006 IBC, Third printing, Table 508.3.3

Why does the code require a 1 hour (or 2 hour for non-sprinklered) separation between a B or M occupancy and an S-2, but no separation between a B or M and S-1?

S-2 is lower hazard, is it not?

This seems bass-ackwards!
 
Re: Dazed and confused

Yes it does seem that way, however this has been beaten to death in the old forum, and I would recommend searching for it there rather than resurrecting it again here! Basically, B, M, and S-1 are considered similar hazard areas, thus no separation required. S-2 is a lower hazard area, as you pointed out. So far, so good. NOW, since B or M is a higher hazard area than S-2, you are providing separation between the high hazard area (B or M) and the low hazard area (S-2).

Clear as mud?
 
Re: Dazed and confused

vegas paul nailed it, at least the theory behind it. Not everyone agrees with it, but that is what the code says. There was considerable testimony over this subject that spanned at least three, maybe four code hearings.
 
Re: Dazed and confused

It's also been discussed on this baord as well, and yes it is to protect the S-2 from the B or M.
 
Re: Dazed and confused

Thanks for the replies.

Still doesn't make much sense to me.

I guess if I just throw my shoes and a leather coat in the storage room I can call it S-1 and bypass the separation!

Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
 
Re: Dazed and confused

Also, without any rating required the building design automatically defaults to non-separated use, thus the sprinkler threshold of 12,000 SF would kick in.......

When applying this to what VP states - Then that section would make (more) sense. The two hour separation would make a separate fire area.
 
Re: Dazed and confused

peesncues wrote.

Thanks for the replies. Still doesn't make much sense to me.

I guess if I just throw my shoes and a leather coat in the storage room I can call it S-1 and bypass the separation!

Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
Click to expand...
That would be an S-1 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top