• 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

Exterior structural elements rated?

Codegeek

Codegeek

Registered User
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
717
Location
Kansas
We have an unlimited area project which is Type IB based on the 2012 IBC. The exterior walls are load bearing and thus required to be rated for 2-hours. We are proposing to attach a canopy over the entries into the building (use is retail) and the question has been raised as to whether or not any of the elements associated with the canopy need to be rated. We are more than 60 feet away from property lines with the unlimited area.

I'm looking at 705.2.1 which requires that projections from walls of Type I or II construction be noncombustible, which they are. However, Section 704.10 which addresses exterior structural members, says that load bearing structural members located within or on the outside of a building must be protected and list three requirements. When I read the commentary on this section, it says the columns and girders must be protected. If I read this correctly, the canopy must be noncombustible and the supporting elements must be 2-hour rated. Am I reading this correctly? I can include a diagram if necessary for discussion purposes.
 
Presuming this canopy is over an exit, it doesn't make much sense if it collapses before the rest of the building.
 
The flames will be coming from the building and if it's the other way around, that exit won't be an option.
 
ICE said:
The flames will be coming from the building and if it's the other way around, that exit won't be an option.
Click to expand...
That's kinda what I was thinking (logically)and wasn't sure if Brudgers was being sarcastic or not.....I would think there would be a small canopy/ awning exception....but I have not seen one (codically)....
 
If I needed a bankable answer to the op's question, I wouldn't ask me.

Does a canopy fit within the definition of a projection as used in section 705.2.1? I don't think so.

704.10 sends you to table 601. In order to use table 601, one must first pick a type of construction.

The question then becomes, what type of construction would the code allow for the canopy?

Attaching it to the building may be the deciding factor. The argument could be made that it is part of the building and therefor shall be Type IB.

That seems like hare splitting but that's how the code works. (I don't mean to insult all of the rabbits out there)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
See Section 3105 (2009 IBC, don't have the 2012) related to "awnings and canopies." In general, decorative canopies supported from the building regardless of construction type fall under this section and are not classified under 601. A very common application of this is "pre-engineered" canopies such as Avadek, Dittmer, Mapes, Peachtree, etc or a custom design element where the main function is to provide weather protection at entry areas. If this "canopy" was say a covered drop-off constructed similar to the building then it likely falls under 601 requirements.
 
ICE said:
Build a Type VB canopy.
Click to expand...
We can't. The building cannot qualify for Type VB construction. Yes, it's unlimited in area and yes we have 60 feet of open area, but it's unlimited in area due to the type of construction as it's more than 2 stories in height.
 
brudgers said:
Presuming this canopy is over an exit, it doesn't make much sense if it collapses before the rest of the building.
Click to expand...
Agree - I'm being asked by others to verify that my interpretation is correct.
 
Codegeek said:
Agree - I'm being asked by others to verify that my interpretation is correct.
Click to expand...
Well they could make it a separate structure with a different construction type and separate it with firewalls...but wait, then the unlimited area building wouldn't be "surrounded and adjoined by [etc]" and therefore could no longer be unlimited area. However, they have the option of constructing the canopy without primary structural members and without load bearing walls and without a roof or floor. It's all about giving them options.
 
IMHO, you are over analyzing the case of a fire causing a collapse of the structure at an exit. Where is the fire coming from, fuel source, etc. The codes in general cover about what is likely to happen, not absolutes. For example, the code assumes a corridor is a protected enclosure, however, if a fire occurred in a corridor, the whole exit system would be compromised and the assumptions made during the design are no longer applicable. In addition, look around and see what is getting built. I am not saying other buildings always comply with the code, but there are numerous examples, particularly on retail projects that have exterior canopies, which are not "fire-rated" in all parts of the country. Even without a canopy, the exterior wall on either sides of the door are non-rated (per your open space) so in theory a fire could start within the "non-rated" wall and block this same exit, thereby having the same end result as a collapsing canopy. The code doesn't say you have to have fire-rated exterior walls wherever an exit door occurs.
 
txarch said:
IMHO, you are over analyzing the case of a fire causing a collapse of the structure at an exit. Where is the fire coming from, fuel source, etc. The codes in general cover about what is likely to happen, not absolutes. For example, the code assumes a corridor is a protected enclosure, however, if a fire occurred in a corridor, the whole exit system would be compromised and the assumptions made during the design are no longer applicable. In addition, look around and see what is getting built. I am not saying other buildings always comply with the code, but there are numerous examples, particularly on retail projects that have exterior canopies, which are not "fire-rated" in all parts of the country. Even without a canopy, the exterior wall on either sides of the door are non-rated (per your open space) so in theory a fire could start within the "non-rated" wall and block this same exit, thereby having the same end result as a collapsing canopy. The code doesn't say you have to have fire-rated exterior walls wherever an exit door occurs.
Click to expand...
I understand. In addition to the canopies over the building entrances, part of what is looking at being added to the rated exterior wall is a sort of advertising display which will have loads imposed on it and will also transfer loads to the exterior of the building. I believe in that case, the structural integrity needs to be maintained.
 
txarch said:
IMHO, you are over analyzing the case of a fire causing a collapse of the structure at an exit. Where is the fire coming from, fuel source, etc. The codes in general cover about what is likely to happen, not absolutes. For example, the code assumes a corridor is a protected enclosure, however, if a fire occurred in a corridor, the whole exit system would be compromised and the assumptions made during the design are no longer applicable. In addition, look around and see what is getting built. I am not saying other buildings always comply with the code, but there are numerous examples, particularly on retail projects that have exterior canopies, which are not "fire-rated" in all parts of the country. Even without a canopy, the exterior wall on either sides of the door are non-rated (per your open space) so in theory a fire could start within the "non-rated" wall and block this same exit, thereby having the same end result as a collapsing canopy. The code doesn't say you have to have fire-rated exterior walls wherever an exit door occurs.
Click to expand...
If your position is that the canopy does not need to meet the requirements for type IB construction, then in my opinion, the code has not been correctly applied.
 
= = =
txarch,
Also, ...a Welcome to The Building Codes Forum! :cool:
= = =
 
Last edited:
I think there is some judgement as to what what we are discussing.

View attachment 653

The attached "covered" drop off or similar configuration View attachment 654

View attachment 655

View attachment 656

View attachment 657

are situations where the fire protection servers little to no purpose, particularly when there are no "concealed" locations. Now if you have a structure is completely concealed within a exterior finish material where a fire could develop as well as having a fuel source, then generally that would match the building construction type.The language in 704.10 says "load-bearing" elements implying (columns , occupied roof, etc) where as "canopy" attached to the building structure is not really "load-bearing" other than the loads required per 3105. I am not saying it is black and white, but clearly the common application of non-rated canopies in the market, leads me to believe this is a valid interpretation.View attachment 653

View attachment 654

View attachment 655

View attachment 656

View attachment 657

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_1212.jpg.8bb574f459080926ceb8d7ef01d8d056.jpg

/monthly_2013_01/P1050027.JPG.c64cc155017a769e62413e0b43f1bfcb.JPG

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_2061.JPG.7e3fa2627c5982ff017a25dca2b45021.JPG

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_2081.JPG.ba9a46a4bdb7b85253708d9c7a271e4f.JPG

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_2207.JPG.7999f635c2db8229d45d0e384d37284a.JPG
 
= = =

txarch,

Which is the "most restrictive" application / interpretation?
[ RE: Section 102.1 in the `06 IBC ]

= = =
 
Last edited:
Txarch, if the photos you show, in your opinion, would not require the protection, then when would the requirement of 704.10 apply and to what would it apply?
 
CANOPY. A permanent structure or architectural projection of rigid construction over which a covering is attached that provides weather protection, identity or decoration, and shall be structurally independent or supported by attachment to a building on one end and by not less than one stanchion on the outer end.

IMHO

Picture 1 and 3 are canopies and 704.10 applies

The remaining pictures are architectural protections because they are not structurally independent or supported on the outer end

What defines the difference between a column, a primary structural frame member and a stanchion?
 
txarch said:
I think there is some judgement as to what what we are discussing. View attachment 1551 The attached "covered" drop off or similar configuration View attachment 1552View attachment 1553View attachment 1554View attachment 1555 are situations where the fire protection servers little to no purpose, particularly when there are no "concealed" locations. Now if you have a structure is completely concealed within a exterior finish material where a fire could develop as well as having a fuel source, then generally that would match the building construction type. The language in 704.10 says "load-bearing" elements implying (columns , occupied roof, etc) where as "canopy" attached to the building structure is not really "load-bearing" other than the loads required per 3105. I am not saying it is black and white, but clearly the common application of non-rated canopies in the market, leads me to believe this is a valid interpretation.
Click to expand...
Type IB requires protection of secondary structural members.
 
I see we are living in the black and white world:). The first photo is a pre-engineered canopy constructed entirely of aluminum, complete open and only purpose is for covering the entry to a building and may or may not be connected to the building. In this situation,, it has been my experience in probably 20 different states (including CA) these do not require fire protection regardless of the code language stated here. The attached photo

View attachment 658

is an example where this is actually a "structure" connected to the building, commonly referred as a porte cochere. This element connected to the building is fire-rated to match the building as well as sprinklered. How much purpose does this serve, very little in my opinion since it is entire non-combustible, not access, etc, so the probability (which is what the code intent is) of a fire starting here is near 0. Even if it did, it would block a required exit and the code doesn't say you have to assume "blocked" exits not with standing the 50% rule.I would use 1509 (2009 IBC) in those situations since the 20' rule talks about a "floor" which can get complicated when you are already outside in a public way.View attachment 658

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_8527.jpg.c70c5e90ac251f01adfc822cbd464f8b.jpg
 
View attachment 659

The image is what we're dealing with which lead to this question. Perhaps it might offer a more clear look at the situation. My apologies if it's not very clear. If you're interested, send me a PM and I can send you the pdf version of it which is easier to see.View attachment 659

/monthly_2013_01/572953c699f36_Gateway_sections.jpg.4943272b12c61e1008a9dbd61299d813.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top