Firewall vs dock cover

[Examiner]

Given:Existing building: Type II-A construction (does not have automatic fire suppression)Code: 2012 IBCNew Building: Type II-B – 2 story with automatic fire suppressionA firewall will be required due to budget limits cannot add fire suppression to the existing building. Therefore; two separate buildings.Issue;The delivery dock is to be expanded. However, they also want a cover over the expanded dock. It will be an open dock. The building’s roof lines do not extend beyond the firewall. We are extending the firewall out beyond the roof lines of the buildings. The question is; can we use a canopy cover over the extended exposed dock that would not be an actual part of the building’s roof? Of course the canopy (flesh color shaded area) would be non-combustible construction. I have attached a PDF of the area. The design is still in schematics.

View attachment 1933

Covered Dock with Firewall.pdf

Covered Dock with Firewall.pdf

 

[cda]

I would require the dock to be sprinkled

Looks like as you maintain rated separation at the buildings you should be ok

 

[Builder Bob]

Not sure how the provisions for the fire wall continuity are covered. especially the part about 706.5.2........ read the exceptions...

 

[Examiner]

The firewall extends beyond the building's exterior walls and/or the building's overhangs. The issue is can the shaded area be an independent non-combustible canopy that abuts the existing and new building's exterior faces? It could even be partially supported at the building abutment if allowed. If the dock's canopy was part of the building's roofs then the firewall would have to extend beyond the canopy's perimeter making the dock usless. As cda stated I think the firewall works for building separation.

 

[Builder Bob]

Fire walls shall extend to the outer edge of horizontal projecting elements such as balconies, roof overhangs, canopies, marquees and similar projections that are within 4 feet (1220 mm) of the fire wall.

Allowing the dock to have an overhang that isn't rated or separated in accordance to the code is going to allow fire or combustion of materials to easily bypass the fire wall...... Charleston Sofa Warehouse fire is a good example of "circumventing" the code and we lost 9 firefighters in that one....

 

[Builder Bob]

According to city building officials, the property was annexed into the city in 1990. The original structure and the 3 additions were considered as 4 separate structures for code enforcement purposes. Separate permits were issued for the construction of the left and right side additions and the warehouse. City building officials indicated to NIOSH investigators that after the fire, the furniture store property was determined to be “non-code compliant” (not in compliance with applicable codes). Work had been performed on the loading dock area and the maintenance shop without permits between 1996 and 2005. Other code violations included the accumulation of trash outside the loading dock, large quantities of flammable liquids, solvents, and thinners in the loading dock area, and storage of furniture and flammable materials in non-permitted areas.

 

[Examiner]

I told them no but had to run the gauntlet anyway. Now it is left up to the boss and his seal on what he wants to do. Code Congress also said no. Why want they listen to me in the office?