• 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

Multiple buildings on one site and fire separation

G

goaneer

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
9
Location
San Jose
I have two buildings on one site.

The main building is 65000 square feet two stories Type II B.

The second building is U occupancy - 1000 square feet. Also Type II B.

Scenario A- Combining both under one building. This eliminates the fire separation requirement between the two buildings.

The combined square footage after considering the frontage addition falls under the allowable total for the B occupancy structure. The code does not explicitly state that the total allowable should be based on the more restrictive occupancy. Would U be considered the more restrictive occupancy?

Scenario B - If we consider them as separate buildings then the fire separation code requirements do apply.

So I draw an imaginary line between these two buildings. I place the line on the exterior wall of the main Type IIB building. This wall is concrete with a four hour rating.

Now if the U occupancy building is less than 5' from the imaginary line then it needs to be 1 hour rated and 0 hour rated if 10'.

I want to confirm that BOTH BUILDINGS NEED to adhere to the fire separation requirements.
 
$ $ $

goaneer,

1st, ...Welcome to The Building Codes Forum! :cool:

2nd, ...what codes are you using, and what are the Occ. Groups

involved with the 65,000 sq. ft. bldg.?

Thanks!

$ $ $
 
Mixed use unsep goes with the most restrictive which for some reason would be the U.....and would be very Area restrictive.....it could be incidental maybe or it looks like a one hr rating.....
 
Appreciate the welcome

Sorry I thought I wrote.

Looking at CBC 503.1.2 for definition

The main building is 65,000 square feet B occupancy.

The other building is U occupancy.

So now I understand if both structures had the same occupany and were combined as one structure the buildings could be closer eliminating the fire seperation requirement.

Now with mixed occupancies B and U if I have to follow U then I cannot combine as the square footage is so less. This means the fire seperation will kick in and if the U occupancy structure is less than 5' the U structure needs to be fire rated.

Am I thinking correctly or am I missing something?
 
What do they use the U for?

Maybe look at 302.2 for accessory use.....302.2 Accessory use areas.

A fire barrier shall be required to separate accessory use areas classified as Group H in accordance with Section 302.3.2, and incidental use areas in accordance with Section 302.1.1. Any other accessory use area shall not be required to be separated by a fire barrier provided the accessory use area occupies an area not more than 10 percent of the area of the story in which it is located and does not exceed the tabular values in Table 503 for the allowable height or area for such use.
 
Are you sure it is a "U" occupancy? Can it be classified under something else say an "S"? If so would 507.4 help out if the CBC has something similar
 
It is a shed - with roof and four posts type of structure. So unfortunately is U occupancy.

So looks like the fire seperation will kick in.

So the main building exterior wall is concrete four hour rated. If I placed the imaginary line on the exterior line and have the shed less than 5' away from the imaginary line then the shed needs to be fire rated. 10' away we are good.

Please correct me otherwise.

Thank you folks for all your feedback.
 
+ + +



"It is a shed - with roof and four posts type of structure. So unfortunately is U occupancy."
Click to expand...
Not an "open air" Storage structure? :confused: Nothing in the "U" Occ. Group

requires walls.

+ + +
 
Actually it is a canopy which has no walls but only a roof on four posts. The reason I said Shed because it is the closest I could think of in the U category.
 
( + )

As mentioned already, ...the "S" Occ. Group designation will be

a more giving / less costly application, ...if it is just a matter

of wordplay / semantics as how to designate & design.

Out of curiosity, what is the shed / structure being used, or

will be used for?

Thanks!

Also, ...might I encourage you to join this Forum with a paid

membership!.........Nothing like having that "Sawhorsie"

designation to tell your colleagues about! :D Besides, this

Forum is THE BEST on the internet.

( * )
 
Actually it is a canopy which has no walls but only a roof on four posts
Click to expand...
With no wall how does it comply with Table 705.8?

Look at 705.8.1 exception 2. If all you have is a structural frame then I believe 10 ft is the minimum fire separation distance you can be.
 
north star said:
( + )As mentioned already, ...the "S" Occ. Group designation will be

a more giving / less costly application, ...if it is just a matter

of wordplay / semantics as how to designate & design.

Out of curiosity, what is the shed / structure being used, or

will be used for?

Thanks!

Also, ...might I encourage you to join this Forum with a paid

membership!.........Nothing like having that "Sawhorsie"

designation to tell your colleagues about! :D Besides, this

Forum is THE BEST on the internet.

( * )
Click to expand...
out of curiosity what does a paid membership enable more than what I have learned today?
 
mtlogcabin said:
With no wall how does it comply with Table 705.8?Look at 705.8.1 exception 2. If all you have is a structural frame then I believe 10 ft is the minimum fire separation distance you can be.
Click to expand...
One of the building plan checker said we can assume an imaginary wall. So if the columns and roof are rated then one could assume the structure to be rated.

But now you are right per Table 705.8 this imaginary wall can be considered entirely open.

Then we need to be atleast 20' feet away with sprinklers and if we are 30' away there is no limit and nothing is required.

Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top