• 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

Garage/living space seperation

* * *

Yankee,

The "drive thru" portico has walls and ceilings. Do the finishes on the walls and ceiling meet

the requirements of Section R315 - FLAME SPREAD AND SMOKE DENSITY ( from the `06 IRC )?

Section R315.1 - "Wall and ceiling. Wall and ceiling finishes shall have a flame-spread

classification of not greater than 200.

Exception: Flame-spread requirements for finishes shall not apply to trim defined as

picture molds, chair rails, baseboards and handrails; to doors and windows or their

frames; or to materials that are less than 1/28 inch (0.91 mm) in thickness cemented

to the surface of walls or ceilings if these materials have a flame-spread characteristic

no greater than paper of this thickness cemented to a noncombustible backing. "

If the finishes do not meet this minimum requirement, other approved materials / finishes will

need to be installed.

Hope this helps! :)

FWIW, even "walkways" will need to comply with this section. :D

* * *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A flame spread of 200 could be carpet; when we think of carport (most of us) think of a free standing structure. A carport, by definition, may not be.. such as is illustrated. We need to protect just as we would a garage.. and that means a code change.
 
peach said:
A flame spread of 200 could be carpet; when we think of carport (most of us) think of a free standing structure. A carport, by definition, may not be.. such as is illustrated. We need to protect just as we would a garage.. and that means a code change.
Click to expand...
The rationale for protecting a carport is that the code requires the protection of garages?

Do you see anything about such reasoning which might be questionable?
 
brudgers said:
The rationale for protecting a carport is that the code requires the protection of garages?Do you see anything about such reasoning which might be questionable?
Click to expand...
I think it is great reasoning for the designer/engineer. Really poor reasoning for the AHJ.
 
A "carport" under a house (with habitable space above).. should be just like a garage with habitable space above... we just aren't trained to think of a "carport" that way.
 
I have always assumed that part of the separation required was due to the "storage" aspect of a typical garage (so you ask, why don't we required separation between basement and living space but lets not go there). This carport is part of a circular driveway and I wouldn't expect the storage aspect to play a part. I have no heartache at all requiring the gyp board or equivalent on the walls and ceiling (and I have approved intumescent application over pine boards in the past), as I don't believe there is any great "hardship" there, , , the door issue rises to another level and that is any glazing that might normally be expected in a feature front door now will have to be rated glazing, and that does create a larger "hardship" both from a design standpoint and a financial standpoint. Brudgers might ask why this "hardship" perception has anything at all to do with applying the requirements of the code and in response I'd say that in these situations where there is a lot of "gray", the AHJ needs to consider all aspects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
peach said:
A "carport" under a house (with habitable space above).. should be just like a garage with habitable space above... we just aren't trained to think of a "carport" that way.
Click to expand...
On what basis?

Show me some numbers.
 
brudgers, really? I know you like to present a different view, but really? Screw the numbers, you don't think that parking cars under a habitable space it more hazardous than not? I had my own car catch fire sitting in my driveway, by the time I got to it, the flames were probably 5' over the top of the car, you don't think that would be a bad thing to have under a BR? Really?
 
Fire migrates up, not side to side.. should be treated as a garage (even with 3 open sides)
 
peach said:
Fire migrates up, not side to side.. should be treated as a garage (even with 3 open sides)
Click to expand...
I agree that the code should treat this as a garage, but the code does not. The AHJ cannot.
 
"I agree that the code should treat this as a garage, but the code does not. The AHJ cannot."

Correct........unless by amendment. Which, I happen to have a clean up ordinance going before my council shortly, and this item made my list of things. I think I will propose a code change for the 2015 cycle also.
 
GHRoberts said:
I agree that the code should treat this as a garage, but the code does not. The AHJ cannot.
Click to expand...
Since the code doesn't treat it any way at all, the interpretation is up to the AHJ
 
fatboy said:
brudgers, really? I know you like to present a different view, but really? Screw the numbers, you don't think that parking cars under a habitable space it more hazardous than not? I had my own car catch fire sitting in my driveway, by the time I got to it, the flames were probably 5' over the top of the car, you don't think that would be a bad thing to have under a BR? Really?
Click to expand...
Riding motorcycles is more hazardous than driving a car.

In case you're missing the irony.
 
peach said:
Fire migrates up, not side to side.. should be treated as a garage (even with 3 open sides)
Click to expand...
The quality of your reasoning is on a par with "heavier objects fall faster than light ones."

If there was empirical evidence for a life-safety benefit from the separation of SFR garages, you can bet that NFPA 101 would require it.

But there isn't.

To put it another way, the life safety hazard posed by the code compliant stairs to the bedroom above the garage and the code compliant bathrooms in the house is more than an order of magnitude greater than the hazard from all residential fire (mortality from falls is 16 times that from dwelling fires).
 
The IRC does not state that all parking spaces that are open on at least two sides are carports. R309.4; states that "carports shall be open on at least two sides."

So, we don't have a carport; we have an " Open Parking Garage" as defined in the *2006 IBC, 406.3.2;

And, the Open Parking Garage shall meet the requirements of; R309.2 Seperation required. " Garages beneath habitable rooms shall be seperated from all habitable rooms above by not less than 5/8-inches Type X gypsum board or equivalent."

References:

2006 IRC, Chapter 2 Definitions.

R201.3 Terms defined in other codes. Where terms are not defined in this code such terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them as in other code publications of the International Code Council.

2006 IBC, 406.3.2 Definitions. The following words and terms shall for the pruposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein.

*OPEN PARKING GARAGE. A structure or portion of a structure with the openings on two or more sides that is used for the parking or storage of private motor vehicles.

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is some question as to if this area is meant for parking (and storage) under the definitions posted. It is part of a circular drive. As it turns out, the contractor may submit plans for a dry sprinkler for approval as an equivalent so that the area may be enclosed at some point, and so they can design a glass-full main entrance doorway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top