Exterior structural elements rated?

[txarch]

Difficult to see, but appears to be concrete tiltwall with an extension element that appears to have a floor, roof, columns, which would have to match the building structure fire-rating. If the column is intended to be "exposed" steel for architectural purposes, would be up hill battle to say these didn't need to be rated. Other elements which appear to be decorative steel elements (tubes) that cantilever for support of a zig-zag component, I would say is non-rated including the lower steel channels.

 

[brudgers]

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 1556 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.

Which of your examples are unlimited area, type IB?

 

[lunatick]

View attachment 1557The 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.

How is this a canopy?

It appears to be an enclosed volume, from this section.

Without the plan, I would think this is a skyway feature. is this also a corridor?

 

[ICE]

How is this a canopy?It appears to be an enclosed volume, from this section.

That's pretty much what I thought too.

 

[Codegeek]

How is this a canopy?It appears to be an enclosed volume, from this section.

Without the plan, I would think this is a skyway feature. is this also a corridor?

This is the worst case scenario of the project, which is why I posted the image. There are areas which have a projected roof over the door and have columns attached, which would be a canopy, which is what the OP was about.

No, the image posted is not a skyway feature and no, it's not a corridor. It's not intended to be occupied, but rather for advertising purposes. There will be a small access to the area for someone to change the advertising within the space.

 

[txarch]

The first image I posted is a Type 1B, the one above is 2A. The others were examples for concept in applying the requirements, but would guess some of them are not 1B and that could be misleading since we are discussing the most restrictive requirements of 704.10, so 2B and 5B are not really an issue with more than 30' open space.

In seeing the image and the last post, it appears this would be fire-rated and not a "canopy" as I described even though it is over a door since it contains concealed space and although not intended to be occupied for general public it is a service access. You might try saying this is an "equipment access" per 505.5, but it feels more like an extension of the building itself as drawn. If you pursued that option, I would construct it using "platform" type metal grating and other "catwalk" type components. Another issue is that this space in the design phase is classified as non-occupied, non-storage, but the Owner comes in an says, I can store all kinds of junk in here without add floor space.

 

[Codegeek]

Another issue is that this space in the design phase is classified as non-occupied, non-storage, but the Owner comes in an says, I can store all kinds of junk in here without add floor space.

It will be visible from the street, I doubt the owner/tenant will be storing stuff here as it's supposed to be in a high-end development.

Thanks for feedback everyone. It looks like in the image I posted, everyone agrees, it must be protected. I still stand on my initial thought of the canopies needing protection.