Exposing Building face

[Plumb-bob]

Trying to interpret how to assess spatial separation of buildings that face each other, but the actual portions of the walls that are exposed to each other are small.

How would you approach this?

 

[Plumb-bob]

I would not consider the exposing building faces to be staggered or skewed as mentioned in the notes to pt9, but there is obviously some reduction in radiated heat in a diminishing pattern as you move away from the neighbouring building along the wall.

 

[tmurray]

Normally you would either rate the whole wall or the fire compartment, but housing allows you to further subdivide the building as needed.

NBC reference is 9.10.15.2.(1)(iii)

 

[Mac Moonfire]

My perspective is that the spatial separation is determined for each building to its property line (limiting distance) regardless of if there is a building on the other side. Neither 9.10.14 nor 9.10.15. address the % facade facing another existing building on the other side of the limiting distance.
Little nugget, a couple of years ago, we had a residential building near the property line to a municipal park (no building in the park). Obviously, the building drawings featured windows to showcase the beauty of the park. Even if it is a park on the other side, spatial separation still had to be observed. Hope it helps

 

[Inspector Gadget]

If there are no fire compartments involved, your hands are quite tied. Offsets are not explicitly dealt with in spatial separation calculations.

One could argue that there's less of a chance of propagation, therefore, only portions of the building should be subject to the requirements for construction (wall/rating/cladding). Only a fire-specialized engineer can actually make that argument. That's a fancy way of saying I'd certainly be open to entertaining an alternative solutions proposal were I faced with a similar situation.

 

[steveray]

My perspective is that the spatial separation is determined for each building to its property line (limiting distance) regardless of if there is a building on the other side.

This was a good observation...Not sure how they do it in da Great White North, but we measure perpendicular to the building to the interior lot line or imaginary line with buildings on the same lot...

 

[Mac Moonfire]

This was a good observation...Not sure how they do it in da Great White North, but we measure perpendicular to the building to the interior lot line or imaginary line with buildings on the same lot...

We proceed the same way.

 

[Plumb-bob]

I believe this situation will be 2 buildings on the same lot, so an imaginary line will have to be drawn between the 2 to assess the limiting distance. But the result will be the same.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I believe this situation will be 2 buildings on the same lot, so an imaginary line will have to be drawn between the 2 to assess the limiting distance. But the result will be the same.

Thanks for the input.

I had an interesting file a few years ago where an F1 generator building was proposed to be built quite close to an F3 low-hazard. The genny building required louvres (unprotected openings) but the F3 was all above-ground ICF (non-combustible, 2hr by appendix D) ... when I first ran the numbers, the spatial separation didn't work, but I knew the designer was a smart cookie and finally figured out that they'd set the spatial separation line close to the existing F3 building. Lesson to remember: that line does NOT necessarily have to be halfway between the two buildings.

 

[steveray]

I had an interesting file a few years ago where an F1 generator building was proposed to be built quite close to an F3 low-hazard. The genny building required louvres (unprotected openings) but the F3 was all above-ground ICF (non-combustible, 2hr by appendix D) ... when I first ran the numbers, the spatial separation didn't work, but I knew the designer was a smart cookie and finally figured out that they'd set the spatial separation line close to the existing F3 building. Lesson to remember: that line does NOT necessarily have to be halfway between the two buildings.

Absolutely.Put it where it works better for you...Toward the more "fireproof" or less risk building....

 

[Plumb-bob]

I had an interesting file a few years ago where an F1 generator building was proposed to be built quite close to an F3 low-hazard. The genny building required louvres (unprotected openings) but the F3 was all above-ground ICF (non-combustible, 2hr by appendix D) ... when I first ran the numbers, the spatial separation didn't work, but I knew the designer was a smart cookie and finally figured out that they'd set the spatial separation line close to the existing F3 building. Lesson to remember: that line does NOT necessarily have to be halfway between the two buildings.

You bet. I am not designing these buildings, just reviewing. I am not even sure what they are at this point, just answering some preliminary questions from the designer.