Fire separation & Opening protection

[righter101]

We have a small (4000ish sq ft. but not "residential") aircraft hangar. 2 walls are required to have 2 hour construction because of the CH 4 provisions based on location on lot (less than 30' to property lines.)

Applicant now proposed to install a mobile home for use as a residence 5 feet away from the Hangar.

Would the opening protection requirements of Ch 7 dictate that since the FSD is less than 3', no openings are allowed?

That is my understanding, but my inspector feels that if they made the hangar wall adjacent to the trailer 2 hour rated (no openings), then it would be ok.

Thoughts?

These are on the same lot.

Thanks.

 

[zigmark]

Righter-

Will the buildings be on the same lot? If these buildings are on the same lot then foot note © to Table 705.8 applies and only one fire wall is required and IBC Section 706.8 would apply allowing some opening. IBC Section 412.5 sets the rating of the wall at 1-hr. and allows only a door to the dwelling unit.

Good Luck!

ZIG

 

[zigmark]

My bad NOT residential was the part I missed. Strike the second sentence in my reply above. The first part would still apply, and yes I see they are on the same lot....

ZIG

 

[righter101]

My bad NOT residential was the part I missed. Strike the second sentence in my reply above. The first part would still apply, and yes I see they are on the same lot.... ZIG

Basically I have an R3 the owner wants to place 5 feet away from an S1 Aircraft hangar. Using Table 602, each building would need a 1 hour rating. When the FSD is less than 10 feet, those need to be rated from both sides.

Then when I look at 705.3, for treating them as a single building, 705.3 exception states that they can if the area is within the limits specified by Chapter 5. These are, area wise, but Chapter 5 addressing "buildings on same lot", 503.1.2 dictates that code provisions for the whole thing are applicable to each building. For us, in Washington, this would mean that the entire thing would need to contain fire sprinklers (since it houses a residential occupancy).

The foot note refers to 706.8 which allows openings as long as they are consistent with 715.6. 715.6 only really deals with doors, but we get to 716 which has glazing requirement that would require 45 minute windows in 1 hour walls.

Seems like in order to do this scenario, on the same lot, they would need to either:

A) Consider it as a single building, provide sprinklers throughout

B) Put in fire walls, 1 hour on each occupancy, rated from both sides and any openings that are provided in the R3 would need to be protected accordingly.

Does this seem correct?

Thanks again.

 

[zigmark]

Righter-

I do agree that the building, if considered one, would be fully sprinklered. However, I still say only one of the walls is required to be rated if considered one building. Consider this scenario, lets say in addition to the MFGD home placement they physically attached the two structures by constructing an adjoining room. There would only be one rated wall between the hanger and the adjoining room of the dwelling that was rated. Placing them side by side is no different if considering them one.

Now if they were separate buildings then both adjoining walls not separated from the real or assumed line between them would be required to be rated.

Just how I see it.

ZIG

 

[Francis Vineyard]

How about they move the home 11' away in accordance with sections 708.5.1 exception 2 and have the (imaginary) interior lot line at the hanger with a 2-hour fire wall portion adjacent to the home?

Francis

 

[righter101]

How about they move the home 11' away in accordance with sections 708.5.1 exception 2 and have the (imaginary) interior lot line at the hanger with a 2-hour fire wall portion adjacent to the home?Francis

That is what I thought would work. Thanks for the input. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.