openings in a wall having a limiting distance of less than 1.2 m shall be protected by closures,

[sunyaer]

This is from Ontario Building Code division B, part 9:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.10.14.4. Openings in Exposing Building Face

(1) Except as provided in Sentences (3) to (7) and Sentence 9.10.14.6.(1), the maximum aggregate area of unprotected openings in an exposing building face shall,
(a) conform to Table 9.10.14.4.,
(b) conform to Subsection 3.2.3., or
(c) where the limiting distance is not less than 1.2 m, be equal to or less than,
(i) the limiting distance squared, for residential occupancies, business and personal services occupancies and low hazard industrial occupancies, and
(ii) half the limiting distance squared, for mercantile occupancies and medium hazard industrial occupancies.

(2) Except as provided in Sentence 9.10.14.6.(1), openings in a wall having a limiting distance of less than 1.2 m shall be protected by closures, of other than wired glass or glass block, whose fire protection rating is in conformance with the fire-resistance rating required for the wall.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the limiting distance is more than 1.2 m, does above (2) imply that the openings need not be protected by closure that have fire protection rating in conformance with the fire-resistance rating required for the wall?

 

[Mac Moonfire]

If the limiting distance is more than 1.2 m, does above (2) imply that the openings need not be protected by closure that have fire protection rating in conformance with the fire-resistance rating required for the wall?

Yes, that's how I read it too.

 

[tmurray]

Correct. This overrules the percentage of opening that might be permitted (or interpolated) from the table and requires that all openings at the distance are protected.

 

[sunyaer]

Correct. This overrules the percentage of opening that might be permitted (or interpolated) from the table and requires that all openings at the distance are protected.

Just to confirm:

When limiting distance is 1.2 m or greater, closures for openings are not required to be fire rated, correct?

 

[tmurray]

Just to confirm:

When limiting distance is 1.2 m or greater, closures for openings are not required to be fire rated, correct?

Kind of. Over 1.2m, the table will give you a percentage of the wall that can be unprotected. These are normally your openings. But, if you have more openings than permitted, you can rate some of them to get you back under the maximum.

 

[sunyaer]

Kind of. Over 1.2m, the table will give you a percentage of the wall that can be unprotected. These are normally your openings. But, if you have more openings than permitted, you can rate some of them to get you back under the maximum.

It's a bit confusing here.
Let's talk about houses:
For limiting distance over 1.2 m (including 1.2 m), the table will give you a percentage of the wall that could be glazed openings. If you have more openings than permitted, you can use closures to reduce the percentage to get you back under the maximum, while the closures are not required to be rated, meaning as long as they are not glazing.

Please comment.

 

[tmurray]

It's a bit confusing here.
Let's talk about houses:
For limiting distance over 1.2 m (including 1.2 m), the table will give you a percentage of the wall that could be glazed openings. If you have more openings than permitted, you can use closures to reduce the percentage to get you back under the maximum, while the closures are not required to be rated, meaning as long as they are not glazing.

Please comment.

That is correct

 

[Inspector Gadget]

It's a bit confusing here.
Let's talk about houses:
For limiting distance over 1.2 m (including 1.2 m), the table will give you a percentage of the wall that could be glazed openings. If you have more openings than permitted, you can use closures to reduce the percentage to get you back under the maximum, while the closures are not required to be rated, meaning as long as they are not glazing.

Yes. Had one project that was a residential occupancy and the client wanted a lot of glass close to a property line. The designer specified fire-rated glass (but not wired glass) to overcome the spatial separation requirements. The client saw the potential cost of Fire-Lite glass and .... you know, I never saw a permit application, so assume the client gave up on their dreams.