• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Firewall Required in Shared Space?

Yogi

REGISTERED
Joined
Dec 20, 2023
Messages
1
Location
Nebraska
BI says need 1 hour wall because of two entities (businesses) sharing retail space. Both businesses are retail (gift shop), both are new tenants in same space previously occupied by two businesses. Old historic building, no sprinklers. Front shop apx 2500, rear shop 1500. All exits ground level (front, back, and side). Space has been all open, new tenants desire a separation wall/partition so if one business is closed access is restricted. Is firewall really required?
 
First off, you are not really talking about a "firewall," you are talking about a fire-resistance rated fire separation assembly.

Secondly, assuming that both of these businesses fall into the same occupancy/use group classification AND that this is the same occupancy/use group classification as the previous tenant(s), the code doesn't require that they be separated.

1704377807576.pngxx

Table 508.4 in the IBC indicates that B requires no separation from B, M requires no separation from M, and B requires no separation from M. I would ask the BI for the code citation on which he is basing his request.
 
I have run across a number of BI/BO who have mistakenly required 1-hr fire separation walls on the basis of 2021 IBC Sec. 402.4.2.1.

402.4.2.1 Tenant Separations

Each tenant space shall be separated from other tenant spaces by a fire partition complying with Section 708. A tenant separation wall is not required between any tenant space and the mall.

To apply the above however, the building would need to be subject to the special detailed requirements for covered or open mall buildings (Sec. 402). I would assess that this is likely not the case (nor was it the case in the many times where I've seen this section misapplied). IMHO, a common strip-mall type multi-tenant building does not fit within the definition of a mall per the IBC.

[BG] COVERED MALL BUILDING. A single building enclosing a number of tenants and occupants, such as retail stores, drinking and dining establishments, entertainment and amusement facilities, passenger transportation terminals, offices and other similar uses wherein two or more tenants have a main entrance into one or more malls. Anchor buildings shall not be considered as a part of the covered mall building. The term "covered mall building" shall include open mall buildings as defined below.
Mall. A roofed or covered common pedestrian area within a covered mall building that serves as access for two or more tenants and not to exceed three levels that are open to each other. The term "mall" shall include open malls as defined below.
Open mall. An unroofed common pedestrian way serving a number of tenants not exceeding three levels. Circulation at levels above grade shall be permitted to include open exterior balconies leading to exits discharging at grade.
Open mall building. Several structures housing a number of tenants, such as retail stores, drinking and dining establishments, entertainment and amusement facilities, offices, and other similar uses, wherein two or more tenants have a main entrance into one or more open malls. Anchor buildings are not considered as a part of the open mall building.
 
This might have been a requirement of one of the model codes before the IBC was developed. The IBC only requires rated separation in covered mall buildings. It might also be a code amendment in that jurisdiction. Ask the BI for a code reference.
 
This might have been a requirement of one of the model codes before the IBC was developed. The IBC only requires rated separation in covered mall buildings. It might also be a code amendment in that jurisdiction. Ask the BI for a code reference.
I've also encountered insurance carriers that require this of the tenant. Addresses both a security element (full height wall provides security in a drop ceiling situation) and as smoke compartmentalization that is important in retail (minor fire or event in adjoining unit has limited impact to adjoining tenant).
 
Back
Top