# Townhouse Fire sep with and w/o sprinklers



## marc m

Im in the 2012 IRC and Im trying to verify the language which speaks to the fire rating with and without fire sprinklers. I see the section 302.2 refers to 302.2(1) & 302.2(2) which both say 1 hour?

Thank you


----------



## cda

The problem is that the code assumes the building is sprinkled


----------



## cda

2015 corrected for ones that do not wet the room:::

R302.2 Townhouses.

Common walls separating townhouses shall be assigned a fire-resistance rating in accordance with Section R302.2, Item 1 or 2. The common wall shared by two townhouses shall be constructed without plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be in accordance with Chapters 34 through 43. Penetrations of the membrane of common walls for electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4.

1. Where a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904 is provided, the common wall shall be not less than a 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263.

2. Where a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904 is not provided, the common wall shall be not less than a 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

*Code Change No: RB79-13*

*Section(s): R302.2, R302.2.4*

*Proponent:* Jeffrey M. Shapiro, representing IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition

(jeff.shapiro@intlcodeconsultants.com)

*Revise as follows:*

*R302.2 Townhouses.* Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated

by fire-resistance rated wall assemblies meeting the requirements of Section R302.1 for exterior walls.

Exceptions:

1. Where a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904 is provided, a common 1-

hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 is

permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment,

ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from

both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the

roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 34

through 43. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section

R302.4.

2. Where a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904 is not provided, a common

2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263

is permitted for townhouses where such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical

equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire

exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the

underside of the roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with

Chapters 34 through 43. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with

Section R302.4.

*R302.2.4 Structural independence.* Each individual townhouse shall be structurally independent.

*Exceptions:*

1. Foundations supporting exterior walls or common walls.

2. Structural roof and wall sheathing from each unit may fasten to the common wall framing.

3. Nonstructural wall and roof coverings.

4. Flashing at termination of roof covering over common wall.

5. Townhouses separated by a common (delete: 1-hour fire resistance-rated) wall as provided in Section

R302.2, Exceptions 1 or 2.

*Reason:* The 1-hour separation requirements in these sections were reduced from 2-hour ratings in prior editions of the IRC based

on the assumption that fire sprinklers mandated by the IRC would be present in all townhouses. Because some jurisdictions are

amending the IRC to remove the fire sprinkler requirement, it is essential that the IRC provide for townhouse separation fire ratings

to be returned to 2-hours if sprinklers are not provided. No justification, other than sprinklers, was ever provided for allowing a 1-

hour separation, and this reduced rating is inappropriate for non-sprinklered buildings.

*Cost Impact*: The code change proposal will not increase the cost of construction.

*Committee Action: Approved as Submitted*

*Committee Reason:* The committee approved this proposed code change because they felt that a) it takes care of an important

omission in the code related to fire sprinkler systems and b) it addresses the many ways in which jurisdictions adopt the code and

modify sprinkler requirements.

*Complete Revision History to the 2015 I-Codes: Successful Changes with Public Comments: 2015 IRC*


----------



## Francis Vineyard

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/industry-news/17127-only-ca-md-irc-sprinkler.html


----------



## mtlogcabin

marc m said:
			
		

> Im in the 2012 IRC and Im trying to verify the language which speaks to the fire rating with and without fire sprinklers. I see the section 302.2 refers to 302.2(1) & 302.2(2) which both say 1 hour?Thank you


Require the non-sprinklered townhouse to follow the 2006 or the 2015 requirements for separation. You can use R104.1 based on the 2009 and 2012 codes assumed the buildings would be sprinkled and provide the additional protection.

 R104.1 General.The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.


----------



## marc m

Excellent answers..Much appreciated gentlemen.


----------



## Coder

Sorry for hijacking an old thread here that almost helped me out. Question for the group. Based on the new language in the 2012 and 2015 IRC editions, do you all think it would be ok for me to allow a contractor to go with a 1-hour wall between sprinklered townhouses even though I am still operating under the 2009 IRC which requires a 2-hr common wall? I most likely will have adopted the 2015 codes before the townhouse project is finished. Not sure what the legal ramifications are though. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## mtlogcabin

I would not go down that path for a code that may not be adopted that will reduce a life safety requirement


----------



## cda

Ibc allows 

Alternative methods


104.11


----------



## north star

*% * % * %*

Coder,

Aren't you legally bound to enforce the requirements
under which the project permit was issued [  i.e. -
the `09 IRC  ] ?


*% * % * %*


----------



## mtlogcabin

cda said:


> Ibc allows
> 
> Alternative methods
> 
> 
> 104.11



R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code

The IRC is a prescriptive code and the intent is to have a 2-hour fire rating between the units under the 2009 edition. 
Don't go there just to save a few dollars of drywall.


----------



## cda

he provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. 

It has been approved in future codes


----------



## Coder

Thank you for the replies. Now I am even more on the fence. Part of me says build it to code as permitted with the two hour separation. The common sense side of me says isn't it overkill if it is sprinklered and the newer codes realized this by amending the requirement to allow for one hour? Will be talking to our attorney on this one before I make any final calls. Thanks again for all your input.


----------



## ADAguy

Remember, "never less than" but can be better.


----------



## mtlogcabin

cda said:


> It has been approved in future codes



A future code is not the adopted code. There is already a history of a grand jury manslaughter indictment against 2 building inspectors in Colorado due to an oversight during inspection.


----------



## cda

mtlogcabin said:


> A future code is not the adopted code. There is already a history of a grand jury manslaughter indictment against 2 building inspectors in Colorado due to an oversight during inspection.




Ok first getting the two townhouse threads mixed up


Just saying 

It is an alternate method


And must have been proven since it is in an adopted code


----------



## steveray

Our State gives mods to newer code every day...but you can't sue the State without the State's permission...


----------



## mtlogcabin

Our state skipped over the 2009 IRC and will be skipping over all of the 2015 code editions. 
Just saying it is not a done deal until the powers to be adopt a code


----------



## Coder

The City Attorney agreed that I could approve a 1 hour common wall sprinklered townhouse as an alternate method based on the 2009 IRC section  R104.11 commentary.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Did you get it in writing to CYA?


----------



## cda

Coder said:


> The City Attorney agreed that I could approve a 1 hour common wall sprinklered townhouse as an alternate method based on the 2009 IRC section  R104.11 commentary.




Well just bless his attorney heart.


----------



## Coder




----------



## Coder

mtlogcabin said:


> Did you get it in writing to CYA?


 Always


----------



## mtlogcabin

You are a wise man


----------

