Roof patio on existing roof structure for Type I and II (NON COMBUSTABLE)

[workley]

Okay I have another gray area: IBC 2009

I have a plan review response on my applied roof material supporting on existing roofing assembly. Loading designed Okay.

however I am getting push a question on allowable materials, and Concealed space of all things.

section 602.2 for non combustible materials - examiner is not allowing FRTW for High-rise. except for meeting 603. <2 story and 20feet above floor (this is for wood roof deck structure).

and They also noted that the pedestal bases cause a concealed space.??

Why is this regulated as a component of a "building element" under 601

it is not the primary frame, bearing or non bearing interior partitions, nor is it floor construction or Roof Construction per the table.

it is outside space - it is not part of the roof assembly, deck or covering. it is above it! it is outside the building envelope.

my argument is - it should be considered furniture or like a finish - then it only needs to meet 1505 for CLASS B min and smoke/flame spread. (but that is a roof covering attached equivalent chart)

also, what is the concealed space issue? it is accessible. it is not part of the return air plenum.

not a fire area, not a sprinkler need or rating issue. air movement can happen between the joints.

What do you think of the argument that this is not a building element of structure but a finish and therefore not regulated?

 

[cda]

Welcome

Is high rise and type of construction limiting material allowed ?

 

[JBI]

Sounds like the reviewer doesn't grasp the concept of 'concealed space'. Spaces within wall, floor, and ceiling assemblies are regulated as concealed spaces, not hollow areas of furniture that is not attached to the structure.

Is all the furniture and flooring inside the building (you know, where the actual risk is...) required to be non-combustible?

 

[steveray]

Got a sketch?

 

[north star]

+ : + : +

workley,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum !

If possible, send a written response to the Plan Reviewer, detailing the various

code sections that support your view on the issue.........As part of you providing

the various, applicable code sections, you [ might ] contact ICC to get their

view on it as well.........Some Plan Reviewers need more supporting evidence

than others [ this is the voice of experience speaking ].

Also, ...while it may not be your responsibility to write out the applicable code

sections that support your view on this matter, ...it will go a long way in

assisting others in our industry to better understand the various codes.

And who doesn't need help in understanding & applying the various codes.

FWIW, ...if you enjoyed your experience on this Forum, would you consider

supporting this GREAT resource by becoming a Sawhorse [ a paid

subscription member ] ?



+ : + : +