• 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.

S-1 and S-2 occupancy separation with B

miguele3

Bronze Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
52
Can someone please explain why the separation between an S-1 and a B occupancy does not have to be rated, while a low-hazard S-2 and a B requires a 1 hour for a sprinklered building? Thanks, I really appreciate the advice I get on this site.

Miguel
 
To answer my own question. It appears that the B occupancy is considered a hazard to the S-2. It makes sense but I would not have guessed.

Notice in the example that there is no separation required between a B and S-1 occupancy

but there is an occupancy separation required between a B and an S-2. In this case, we are

actually creating a separation to protect the S-2 from the B because it has been determined that

the B occupancy imposes a similar hazard level as that of the F-1, S-1 and M occupancies. Also

note that the S-2 occupancy may be constructed with fewer built-in safeguards, compared to the

S-1, to protect it in an event because it is less hazardous. By requiring a separation from the B

occupancy, the S-2 does not assume the higher risk of the B occupancy.

If you have any further questions about the new separation requirements please contact: ADA,

Fire, Life-Safety Specialist, Shane Sumption at 503-378-4635 or shane.r.sumption@state.or.us
 
miguele3 said:
To answer my own question. It appears that the B occupancy is considered a hazard to the S-2. It makes sense but I would not have guessed.Notice in the example that there is no separation required between a B and S-1 occupancy

but there is an occupancy separation required between a B and an S-2. In this case, we are

actually creating a separation to protect the S-2 from the B because it has been determined that

the B occupancy imposes a similar hazard level as that of the F-1, S-1 and M occupancies. Also

note that the S-2 occupancy may be constructed with fewer built-in safeguards, compared to the

S-1, to protect it in an event because it is less hazardous. By requiring a separation from the B

occupancy, the S-2 does not assume the higher risk of the B occupancy.

If you have any further questions about the new separation requirements please contact: ADA,

Fire, Life-Safety Specialist, Shane Sumption at 503-378-4635 or shane.r.sumption@state.or.us
Nice pick-up and closing the circle on the question. Thanks
 
Back
Top