# Exterior structural elements rated?



## Codegeek (Jan 16, 2013)

We have an unlimited area project which is Type IB based on the 2012 IBC.  The exterior walls are load bearing and thus required to be rated for 2-hours.  We are proposing to attach a canopy over the entries into the building (use is retail) and the question has been raised as to whether or not any of the elements associated with the canopy need to be rated.  We are more than 60 feet away from property lines with the unlimited area.

I'm looking at 705.2.1 which requires that projections from walls of Type I or II construction be noncombustible, which they are.  However, Section 704.10 which addresses exterior structural members, says that load bearing structural members located within or on the outside of a building must be protected and list three requirements.  When I read the commentary on this section, it says the columns and girders must be protected.  If I read this correctly, the canopy must be noncombustible and the supporting elements must be 2-hour rated.  Am I reading this correctly?  I can include a diagram if necessary for discussion purposes.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 16, 2013)

Has floor ? Has Roof = Building area (enclosure walls not required)

supports building and is considered an exterior location = requires rating; of course.

shur sounds like you are applying what is so written.


----------



## ICE (Jan 16, 2013)

Build a Type VB canopy.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 16, 2013)

Presuming this canopy is over an exit, it doesn't make much sense if it collapses before the rest of the building.


----------



## ICE (Jan 16, 2013)

The flames will be coming from the building and if it's the other way around, that exit won't be an option.


----------



## steveray (Jan 17, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> The flames will be coming from the building and if it's the other way around, that exit won't be an option.


  That's kinda what I was thinking (logically)and wasn't sure if Brudgers was being sarcastic or not.....I would think there would be a small canopy/ awning exception....but I have not seen one (codically)....


----------



## ICE (Jan 17, 2013)

If I needed a bankable answer to the op's question, I wouldn't ask me.

Does a canopy fit within the definition of a projection as used in section 705.2.1?  I don't think so.

704.10 sends you to table 601.  In order to use table 601, one must first pick a type of construction.

The question then becomes, what type of construction would the code allow for the canopy?

Attaching it to the building may be the deciding factor.  The argument could be made that it is part of the building and therefor shall be Type IB.

That seems like hare splitting but that's how the code works. (I don't mean to insult all of the rabbits out there)


----------



## txarch (Jan 17, 2013)

See Section 3105 (2009 IBC, don't have the 2012) related to "awnings and canopies."  In general, decorative canopies supported from the building regardless of construction type fall under this section and are not classified under 601.  A very common application of this is "pre-engineered" canopies such as Avadek, Dittmer, Mapes, Peachtree, etc or a custom design element where the main function is to provide weather protection at entry areas.  If this "canopy" was say a covered drop-off constructed similar to the building then it likely falls under 601 requirements.


----------



## steveray (Jan 17, 2013)

Thanks for the great first post and Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Codegeek (Jan 17, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Build a Type VB canopy.


We can't.  The building cannot qualify for Type VB construction.  Yes, it's unlimited in area and yes we have 60 feet of open area, but it's unlimited in area due to the type of construction as it's more than 2 stories in height.


----------



## Codegeek (Jan 17, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Presuming this canopy is over an exit, it doesn't make much sense if it collapses before the rest of the building.


Agree - I'm being asked by others to verify that my interpretation is correct.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 17, 2013)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> Agree - I'm being asked by others to verify that my interpretation is correct.


  Well they could make it a separate structure with a different construction type and separate it with firewalls...but wait, then the unlimited area building wouldn't be "surrounded and adjoined by [etc]" and therefore could no longer be unlimited area.   However, they have the option of constructing the canopy without primary structural members and without load bearing walls and without a roof or floor. It's all about giving them options.


----------



## txarch (Jan 17, 2013)

IMHO, you are over analyzing the case of a fire causing a collapse of the structure at an exit.  Where is the fire coming from, fuel source, etc.  The codes in general cover about what is likely to happen, not absolutes.  For example, the code assumes a corridor is a protected enclosure, however, if a fire occurred in a corridor, the whole exit system would be compromised and the assumptions made during the design are no longer applicable.  In addition, look around and see what is getting built.  I am not saying other buildings always comply with the code, but there are numerous examples, particularly on retail projects that have exterior canopies, which are not "fire-rated" in all parts of the country.  Even without a canopy, the exterior wall on either sides of the door are non-rated (per your open space) so in theory a fire could start within the "non-rated" wall and block this same exit, thereby having the same end result as a collapsing canopy.  The code doesn't say you have to have fire-rated exterior walls wherever an exit door occurs.


----------



## Codegeek (Jan 17, 2013)

txarch said:
			
		

> IMHO, you are over analyzing the case of a fire causing a collapse of the structure at an exit.  Where is the fire coming from, fuel source, etc.  The codes in general cover about what is likely to happen, not absolutes.  For example, the code assumes a corridor is a protected enclosure, however, if a fire occurred in a corridor, the whole exit system would be compromised and the assumptions made during the design are no longer applicable.  In addition, look around and see what is getting built.  I am not saying other buildings always comply with the code, but there are numerous examples, particularly on retail projects that have exterior canopies, which are not "fire-rated" in all parts of the country.  Even without a canopy, the exterior wall on either sides of the door are non-rated (per your open space) so in theory a fire could start within the "non-rated" wall and block this same exit, thereby having the same end result as a collapsing canopy.  The code doesn't say you have to have fire-rated exterior walls wherever an exit door occurs.


I understand.  In addition to the canopies over the building entrances, part of what is looking at being added to the rated exterior wall is a sort of advertising display which will have loads imposed on it and will also transfer loads to the exterior of the building.  I believe in that case, the structural integrity needs to be maintained.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 17, 2013)

txarch said:
			
		

> IMHO, you are over analyzing the case of a fire causing a collapse of the structure at an exit.  Where is the fire coming from, fuel source, etc.  The codes in general cover about what is likely to happen, not absolutes.  For example, the code assumes a corridor is a protected enclosure, however, if a fire occurred in a corridor, the whole exit system would be compromised and the assumptions made during the design are no longer applicable.  In addition, look around and see what is getting built.  I am not saying other buildings always comply with the code, but there are numerous examples, particularly on retail projects that have exterior canopies, which are not "fire-rated" in all parts of the country.  Even without a canopy, the exterior wall on either sides of the door are non-rated (per your open space) so in theory a fire could start within the "non-rated" wall and block this same exit, thereby having the same end result as a collapsing canopy.  The code doesn't say you have to have fire-rated exterior walls wherever an exit door occurs.


  If your position is that the canopy does not need to meet the requirements for type IB construction, then in my opinion, the code has not been correctly applied.


----------



## north star (Jan 18, 2013)

*= = =*



txarch,

Also, ...a Welcome to The Building Codes Forum!  



*= = =*


----------



## txarch (Jan 18, 2013)

I think there is some judgement as to what what we are discussing.

View attachment 653


The attached "covered" drop off or similar configuration 
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 654


View attachment 655


View attachment 656


View attachment 657


are situations where the fire protection servers little to no purpose, particularly when there are no "concealed" locations.  Now if you have a structure is completely concealed within a exterior finish material where a fire could develop as well as having a fuel source, then generally that would match the building construction type.The language in 704.10 says "load-bearing" elements implying (columns , occupied roof, etc) where as "canopy" attached to the building structure is not really "load-bearing" other than the loads required per 3105.  I am not saying it is black and white, but clearly the common application of non-rated canopies in the market, leads me to believe this is a valid interpretation.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 653


View attachment 654


View attachment 655


View attachment 656


View attachment 657


/monthly_2013_01/IMG_1212.jpg.8bb574f459080926ceb8d7ef01d8d056.jpg

/monthly_2013_01/P1050027.JPG.c64cc155017a769e62413e0b43f1bfcb.JPG

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_2061.JPG.7e3fa2627c5982ff017a25dca2b45021.JPG

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_2081.JPG.ba9a46a4bdb7b85253708d9c7a271e4f.JPG

/monthly_2013_01/IMG_2207.JPG.7999f635c2db8229d45d0e384d37284a.JPG


----------



## north star (Jan 18, 2013)

*= = =*



txarch,



Which is the "most restrictive" application / interpretation?

[ RE: Section 102.1 in the `06 IBC  ]



*= = =*


----------



## Codegeek (Jan 18, 2013)

Txarch, if the photos you show, in your opinion, would not require the protection, then when would the requirement of 704.10 apply and to what would it apply?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 18, 2013)

CANOPY. A permanent structure or architectural projection of rigid construction over which a covering is attached that provides weather protection, identity or decoration, and shall be structurally independent or supported by attachment to a building on one end and by not less than one stanchion on the outer end.

IMHO

Picture 1 and 3 are canopies and 704.10 applies

The remaining pictures are architectural protections because they are not structurally independent or supported on the outer end

What defines the difference between a column, a primary structural frame member and a stanchion?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2013)

txarch said:
			
		

> I think there is some judgement as to what what we are discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Type IB requires protection of secondary structural members.


----------



## steveray (Jan 18, 2013)

txarch....some of those structures may be exempt due to Table 601 footnote c3...more than 20' off the floor? Less than 3 stories...


----------



## txarch (Jan 18, 2013)

I see we are living in the black and white world.  The first photo is a pre-engineered canopy constructed entirely of aluminum, complete open and only purpose is for covering the entry to a building and may or may not be connected to the building.  In this situation,, it has been my experience in probably 20 different states (including CA) these do not require fire protection regardless of the code language stated here.   The attached photo

View attachment 658


is an example where this is actually a "structure" connected to the building, commonly referred as a porte cochere.  This element connected to the building is fire-rated to match the building as well as sprinklered.  How much purpose does this serve, very little in my opinion since it is entire non-combustible, not access, etc, so the probability (which is what the code intent is) of a fire starting here is near 0.  Even if it did, it would block a required exit and the code doesn't say you have to assume "blocked" exits not with standing the 50% rule.I would use 1509 (2009 IBC) in those situations since the 20' rule talks about a "floor" which can get complicated when you are already outside in a public way.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 658


/monthly_2013_01/IMG_8527.jpg.c70c5e90ac251f01adfc822cbd464f8b.jpg


----------



## Codegeek (Jan 18, 2013)

View attachment 659


The image is what we're dealing with which lead to this question.  Perhaps it might offer a more clear look at the situation.  My apologies if it's not very clear.   If you're interested, send me a PM and I can send you the pdf version of it which is easier to see.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 659


/monthly_2013_01/572953c699f36_Gateway_sections.jpg.4943272b12c61e1008a9dbd61299d813.jpg


----------



## txarch (Jan 18, 2013)

Difficult to see, but appears to be concrete tiltwall with an extension element that appears to have a floor, roof, columns, which would have to match the building structure fire-rating.  If the column is intended to be "exposed" steel for architectural purposes, would be up hill battle to say these didn't need to be rated.  Other elements which appear to be decorative steel elements (tubes) that cantilever for support of a zig-zag component, I would say is non-rated including the lower steel channels.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2013)

txarch said:
			
		

> I see we are living in the black and white world.  The first photo is a pre-engineered canopy constructed entirely of aluminum, complete open and only purpose is for covering the entry to a building and may or may not be connected to the building.  In this situation,, it has been my experience in probably 20 different states (including CA) these do not require fire protection regardless of the code language stated here.   The attached photo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Which of your examples are unlimited area, type IB?


----------



## lunatick (Jan 20, 2013)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> View attachment 1557
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is this a canopy?

It appears to be an enclosed volume, from this section.

Without the plan, I would think this is a skyway feature. is this also a corridor?


----------



## ICE (Jan 20, 2013)

lunatick said:
			
		

> How is this a canopy?It appears to be an enclosed volume, from this section.


That's pretty much what I thought too.


----------



## Codegeek (Jan 21, 2013)

lunatick said:
			
		

> How is this a canopy?It appears to be an enclosed volume, from this section.
> 
> Without the plan, I would think this is a skyway feature. is this also a corridor?


This is the worst case scenario of the project, which is why I posted the image.  There are areas which have a projected roof over the door and have columns attached, which would be a canopy, which is what the OP was about.

No, the image posted is not a skyway feature and no, it's not a corridor.  It's not intended to be occupied, but rather for advertising purposes.  There will be a small access to the area for someone to change the advertising within the space.


----------



## txarch (Jan 21, 2013)

The first image I posted is a Type 1B, the one above is 2A.  The others were examples for concept in applying the requirements, but would guess some of them are not 1B and that could be misleading since we are discussing the most restrictive requirements of 704.10, so 2B and 5B are not really an issue with more than 30' open space.

In seeing the image and the last post, it appears this would be fire-rated and not a "canopy" as I described even though it is over a door since it contains concealed space and although not intended to be occupied for general public it is a service access.  You might try saying this is an "equipment access" per 505.5, but it feels more like an extension of the building itself as drawn.  If you pursued that option, I would construct it using "platform" type metal grating and other "catwalk" type components.  Another issue is that this space in the design phase is classified as non-occupied, non-storage, but the Owner comes in an says, I can store all kinds of junk in here without add floor space.


----------



## Codegeek (Jan 21, 2013)

txarch said:
			
		

> Another issue is that this space in the design phase is classified as non-occupied, non-storage, but the Owner comes in an says, I can store all kinds of junk in here without add floor space.


It will be visible from the street, I doubt the owner/tenant will be storing stuff here as it's supposed to be in a high-end development.

Thanks for feedback everyone.  It looks like in the image I posted, everyone agrees, it must be protected.  I still stand on my initial thought of the canopies needing protection.


----------

