-
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.
Protected openings based on FSD?
- Thread starter Sifu
- Start date
Table 601 would never require protected openings, as the fire-resistance rating is for the structure only. Intent being fire resilience of the building, not compartmentalization of the fire.
Table 602 however, does deal with limiting the spread of fire (building to building). Not directly fire compartmentalization, but spacing structures far enough apart to limit the spread of fire. Table 602 does not specifically address opening protectives however. To get to opening protectives, make your way to Ch. 7 and Section 705. Section 705.8 will establish the limits for allowable area of openings and the degree of opening protection, with protected openings further codified in Section 716.
IMHO, the 2018 was a bit of a difficult pathway. The 2021 IBC really cleaned this up a bit.
Table 602 however, does deal with limiting the spread of fire (building to building). Not directly fire compartmentalization, but spacing structures far enough apart to limit the spread of fire. Table 602 does not specifically address opening protectives however. To get to opening protectives, make your way to Ch. 7 and Section 705. Section 705.8 will establish the limits for allowable area of openings and the degree of opening protection, with protected openings further codified in Section 716.
IMHO, the 2018 was a bit of a difficult pathway. The 2021 IBC really cleaned this up a bit.
Sifu
SAWHORSE
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,391
705.8 would not require the single opening to be protected as it does not exceed the table value, which is the direction I assumed, but the DP has protected some openings and not others, which made me wonder. Because section 602.1 contains the language about openings for t601, I wanted to make sure it wasn't a blanket allowance for t602 like that provided for t601 since both tables are referenced in section 602.1.
To me, the final sentence of 602.1 should identify that the elements being referred to are those found it t601. Seems like this might be better:
"The protection of openings, ducts and air transfer openings in building elements required to be fire resistance rated by t601 shall not be required unless required by other provisions of this code"...or something similar. But, maybe I just think too much, or not enough.
To me, the final sentence of 602.1 should identify that the elements being referred to are those found it t601. Seems like this might be better:
"The protection of openings, ducts and air transfer openings in building elements required to be fire resistance rated by t601 shall not be required unless required by other provisions of this code"...or something similar. But, maybe I just think too much, or not enough.
CR Design
SAWHORSE
The last sentence of IBC 2018 s. 602.1 applies to openings, etc. in the "building elements". Building element ratings requirements are controlled by Table 601. Table 602 addresses the required ratings for "exterior walls". Therefore, the sentence: "The protection of openings, ducts and air transfer openings in building elements shall not be required unless required by other provisions of this code." applies only to those "building elements" of Table 601.