Plans Approver
Silver Member
Re: Question for members about the purpose of this website
Scoreboard for Building Separation thread:
Acceptable:
1. Draw a line - if FSD less than 10' - 1 hour
2. if total building areas are within VB allowed - 1 building
3. get an architect, dp, etc.
4. if total building areas are within VB allowed and greater than 20,000 sf - sprinklers
5. suggested lubricant
Questionable:
1. Fire areas defined by exterior walls
2. everybody in Oregon is qualified to design buildings
3. How about those Jets?
4. building separation or thread lock - see No. 5 above
As long as we seem to guessing the idenity of Nononsense, the original poster. Either, he was the builder who expanded the building at the insistance of the building committee of the (possibly private) school and got caught by the building department; or, a representative of that building committee (or their attorney) that made the decision and now doesn't want to pay for the extra.
Since he thanked us in advance, I don't think he'll return with a final thank you after reading his thread.
End of my humor. :roll:
Since this thread is becoming circular or vortex-like. I decided to make a scoreboard of the responses to the original post, using acceptable and questionable answers rather than right or wrong because that couldn't apply. So what follows is done in humor (mine, may not be yours).Nononsense posted:I have a new type II-B building with a type V-B existing building 18 feet away on the same property, both building are “E” occupancy.
Am I interpreting the ICC (2006) table 602 correctly in that I don’t need to rate the exterior wall of the new building? If not what am I missing.
Scoreboard for Building Separation thread:
Acceptable:
1. Draw a line - if FSD less than 10' - 1 hour
2. if total building areas are within VB allowed - 1 building
3. get an architect, dp, etc.
4. if total building areas are within VB allowed and greater than 20,000 sf - sprinklers
5. suggested lubricant
Questionable:
1. Fire areas defined by exterior walls
2. everybody in Oregon is qualified to design buildings
3. How about those Jets?
4. building separation or thread lock - see No. 5 above
As long as we seem to guessing the idenity of Nononsense, the original poster. Either, he was the builder who expanded the building at the insistance of the building committee of the (possibly private) school and got caught by the building department; or, a representative of that building committee (or their attorney) that made the decision and now doesn't want to pay for the extra.
Since he thanked us in advance, I don't think he'll return with a final thank you after reading his thread.
End of my humor. :roll: