Small addition onto Type 4 building

[Simonsays]

What should the construction of a small addition (12' x 14') onto a type 4 church be? To request heavy timbers on both walls and roof seems absurd. Table 601 is not much help - 'HT' is called for. Wood frame construction rated for 2-hours seems also as overkill. So is providing a firewall between differing types of construction. Any thoughts towards solving this puzzle?

 

[texasbo]

HT not necessarilly required on walls. 2 Hr bearing walls, non-rated nonbearing walls if you have fire separation, and FRTW may be used if 2 hr or less.. Interior bearing walls HT or 1 hr.

With that said, there is no magic solution to the issue here. Can the existing building be reclassified, and are they willing to do it? If not, and they don't want to do HT or a fire wall, they are SOL.

 

[permitguy]

When dealing with Type IV, my first question is always "Is this REALLY Type IV?". If I had a dime for every time a professional (either side of the counter) called something Type IV because they saw some exposed beams - well, I'd have at least $1.50 by now.

 

[north star]

* * * *

Simonsays,

I agree with the input so far......An accurate determination of

the actual construction type [ should ] be made before any

standards / code sections are applied, or they could just go

ahead and design / construct something above the minimum

codes.

* * * *

 

[Architect1281]

Generally Generally Generally - the height and areas of a HT type 4 are nearly most always equivalent to a 3B

If IF IF the Height area works out for the 4 to reclassify as a 3B that is the way I have handled that issue.

also most often churches look similar to but are really not type 4.

even many of the older Mills are more 3 than 4 that I have done esxtensive rehab work in

 

[brudgers]

The way IBC treats type IV is stupid.

The SBC was sensible when it came to heavy timber and had fire protection ratings for non-heavy timber members so that the separation of construction types was not required - something which is obviously too sensible for the idiots who write the IBC.

 

[permitguy]

You too can be one of those idiots. If you don't like something, submit a change.

 

[brudgers]

You too can be one of those idiots. If you don't like something, submit a change.

Not interested in joining the idiot apocalypse.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Not interested in joining the idiot apocalypse.

Same as complaining about politicians and not voting.

 

[brudgers]

Same as complaining about politicians and not voting.

Not really.

The issue with the IBC is structural - e.g. the logic that only heavy timber framing should be allowed in a heavy timber building or that all assembly occupancies over 300 require sprinklers or that zero lot line development under the IRC requires one hour fire protection.

The ICC Jihad is based on the idea that code requirements are descendent from the macro scale. Hence Heavy Timber construction acquires the same logic in its details due to shear idiocy that non-combustible construction requires of it's details for life safety reasons.

That's the problem when you turn code officials loose to make a code, they don't base it on experience or common sense or the public welfare.

Instead, they base it on what they want and the idea that they must close all "those loopholes" or otherwise the "thresholds may never be met."

 

[texasbo]

Same as complaining about politicians and not voting.

Actually, a more accurate analogy would be "like voting for the wrong candidate out of pure ignorance". Just as noncombustible construction provisions have the very same "loopholes" allowing combustible elements that he says are closed, so does Type IV allow elements beyond HT construction. As usual, nothing brought to the table, nothing constructive.

I think he voted for Nixon this last go around....

 

[TJacobs]

If it is a Type IV, the addition needs to be Type IV to avoid reclassification. Can you make it using Type V?

 

[texasbo]

If it is a Type IV, the addition needs to be Type IV to avoid reclassification. Can you make it using Type V?

Yes, we've all been saying that, but just for clarification, Type IV does allow limited use of non-HT elements.