# Unlimited Area Buildings and Type of Construction



## ewenme (Apr 25, 2011)

I have a 130,000 sq. ft. building, with mixed use occupancy of M & S-1. The Architect is claiming Unlimited Area AND Type V-B construction, quoting '09 IBC 507.3.  I disagree with his call, citing Table 503, and Section 508.3.2, which references 503.1. The building is fully sprinklered throughout, however there are no fire separation walls. FYI: This is a Wal-Mart addition and full gut-remodel. I'd like to hear how others would call it.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 25, 2011)

507.3 Sprinklered, one story. The area of a Group B, F, M or S building no more than one story above grade plane shall not be limited when the building is provided with an automatic sprinkler system throughout in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 and is surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet in width.

*1. Do they have the yards?*

*2. TABLE 508.4, separation not required*


----------



## fatboy (Apr 25, 2011)

I'm with Mark.........


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 25, 2011)

TABLE 503

ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND BUILDING AREASa

a. See the following sections for general exceptions to Table 503:

1. Section 504.2, Allowable height increase due to automatic sprinkler system installation.

2. Section 506.2, Allowable area increase due to street frontage.

3. Section 506.3, Allowable area increase due to automatic sprinkler system installation.

4. Section 507, Unlimited area buildings.

4 sends you to section 507. So I agree with Mark do you have the 60 foot open yard requirement? If you do it is okay.


----------



## RLGA (Apr 25, 2011)

I concur with the above.  If the yards are provided, then an unlimited, Type VB building is permissible for those occupancy groups.  Separation by fire barriers per 508.4 or fire walls for separate buildings, are not required.


----------



## High Desert (Apr 25, 2011)

Table 503 has a footnote a., 4 that sends you to 507 for unlimited area buildings, so you're out of Table 503 when applying the provisions of 507. You can have the various occupancies and not call it mixed occupancy and still use the unlimited area building provisions.


----------



## ewenme (Apr 25, 2011)

Maybe I'm dense, but if you have a single occupancy building, I would agree with you. However, Section 508.3, limits the area to those figures in Table 503... and for M and S-1 the limits are way less than 130,000 sq. ft. of Type V-B construction.  I do believe they have met the requirements for Type I-B using fire retardent wood for the roof sheathing and CMU, non-combustible materials elsewhere. Why wouldn't they want to designate Type I-B [non-rated] for the unlimited area structure which is protected by sprinklers throughout?

If, as you all have noted, that unlimited area buildings are allowed, why does the code limit the area of mixed occupancy buildings to the values in Table 503?  Maybe I'm splitting hairs or points... but there must be a reason, unless the code is just useless! :devil


----------



## permitguy (Apr 25, 2011)

> Section 508.3, limits the area to those figures in Table 503


Not quite.  Always read the footnotes.



> Why wouldn't they want to designate Type I-B [non-rated]


Type I-B is not "non-rated."  Type V-B will be much cheaper, will give them greater design flexibility, and is permissible by code.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 25, 2011)

There are area limits *if you do not have the fire fighting yards.*


----------



## High Desert (Apr 25, 2011)

See the following ICC interpretation. Althought the question was asked about a 2-story unlimited building, it only seems to reason that it would also apply to a 1-story.

http://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/committeeArea/pdf_file/BU_03_44_06.pdf


----------



## texasbo (Apr 25, 2011)

ewenme, Mark and the others are correct; the yards and the sprinklers are the difference. For the occupancies noted, even with mixed occupancies, you get unlimited area with fully sprinklered buildings with the yards.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 25, 2011)

503.1 General.

The height and area for buildings of different construction types shall be governed by the intended use of the building and shall not exceed the limits in Table 503 except as modified hereafter. 

As Mark pointed out the 60 ft open yards allow the modification in area according to footnote "a" item 4


----------



## ewenme (Apr 25, 2011)

They do have the 60 ft. yards, except at the back where the yard goes up a steep slope. However, I'm still stuck in the 'endless do-loop' created by Section 508.3, which 'comes after' 507.3... as hereafter modified.  If mixed use occupancies are not big deal, then why don't we just eliminate them from the code book according to the Table at 508?

In the last class I took on use and occupancy, A= rated construction, B= non-rated construction.  Permitguy, can you show me where it says "B" does not equal non-rated?


----------



## ewenme (Apr 25, 2011)

:banghd BTW: Thank you all for the very good discussion. :inspctr


----------



## High Desert (Apr 25, 2011)

ewnme, if you didn't have the 60 ft. yards, you would be in the mixed occupancy section and the building would be subject to the provisions of 508.4, Separated Occupancies and wouldn't qualify for the unlimited area. Then you would be back at Table 503. Did you read the ICC interpretation? Mixed occupancies are a big deal if you can't meet nonseparated uses or unlimited area.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 25, 2011)

> In the last class I took on use and occupancy, A= rated construction, B= non-rated construction. Permitguy, can you show me where it says "B" does not equal non-rated?


That is an extremely over-simplified explanation of the A and B.  Look at the requirements for Type I-B construction in table 601, and you will see what I was getting at.


----------



## JBI (Apr 25, 2011)

ewenme - It's a bit more complex than A=rated and B=non-rated... more accurate to say that A's have higher ratings than their corresponding B's. BTW, I agree with the majority on the OP. Like it or not, the proposal complies (just make sure the yards ALL count and the sprinklers are done correctly).


----------



## ewenme (Apr 25, 2011)

Actually, in doing the plan review, I was impressed with the completeness of the plans. I only found one small structural detail missing: support for a 3 1/8" precast cap for a wall that is ledgered against a taller wall. I questioned the architect, 'where can I find the detail for the support of the precast cap?'... And he replied:  sorry, it's not there. I missed it and the engineer missed it. The architect is also going to send me an ICC commentary on the ulimited area buildings.  The proposed building will have about 40 feet level at the back of the building, then it's uphill at a 3:1 slope to the property line, which ends at a road that is taller than the roof of the proposed building.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 25, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> The proposed building will have about 40 feet level at the back of the building, then it's uphill at a 3:1 slope to the property line, which ends at a road that is taller than the roof of the proposed building.


 *Still maybe okay*

507.5 Reduced open space. The public ways or yards of 60 feet (18 288 mm) in width required in Sections 507.2, 507.3, 507.4, 507.6 and 507.11 shall be permitted to be reduced to not less than 40 feet (12 192 mm) in width provided all of the following

requirements are met:

1. The reduced width shall not be allowed for more than 75 percent of the perimeter of the building.

2. The exterior walls facing the reduced width shall have a minimum fire-resistance rating of 3 hours.

3. Openings in the exterior walls facing the reduced width shall have opening protectives with a minimumfire protection rating of 3 hours.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 25, 2011)

I think the OP is having a bit of a hangup over VB unnecessarily.

Just because combustible construction is allowed in VB doesn't mean it will be used.

Most likely non-combustible materials will be used due to insurance rates.

VB just means that structural elements and exterior walls will not need to be rated due to construction type* - And the insurance carrier probably won't care about that.

* (other code requirements may require rating).


----------



## texasbo (Apr 26, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> *Still maybe okay*507.5 Reduced open space. The public ways or yards of 60 feet (18 288 mm) in width required in Sections 507.2, 507.3, 507.4, 507.6 and 507.11 shall be permitted to be reduced to not less than 40 feet (12 192 mm) in width provided all of the following
> 
> requirements are met:
> 
> ...


Whoa, hold on. The code says yards or public ways. It doesn't say they have to be paved, be fire lanes, nor does it regulate the slope. Definition of yard does not include slope or grade. If there are 60' yards, then it is eligible for unlimited area.


----------



## Builder Bob (Apr 26, 2011)

TexasBO - read the commentary - while not code, it does provide logic for the unlimited building to be built when tradeoffs are provided - i.e. sprinklers AND Fire Department Access..... Firetrucks cannot fly nor does water from firefighting nozzles (master streams) have unlimited reach - gravity will bring the water stream down and air resistance will cause the master stream to break apart .......


----------



## texasbo (Apr 26, 2011)

The fact remains, the code says yards or public ways. A yard could be filled with landscaping, water features, sculpture gardens, or just soft, mushy, unpaved ground, all of which would not be conducive to fire trucks. If the code intended fire truck access, it would have said fire lanes.

And I think the intent is increased separation from other structures as much or more than it is for fire access. But regardless, a yard is a yard.

Lastly, the authors of the handbooks are no more experts than many of the members here; I'd place my trust in the interpretation of members of this forum before I would ICC.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 26, 2011)

I tend to agree with Texasbo on this yard thing, But I believe the IFC states some different language for fire access. Now I am going to have to go to the truck and read those sections.


----------



## Builder Bob (Apr 26, 2011)

While not in the Building Code, this is from the fire code. This requirementy does not go away with sprinklers and open yards without other (non-code) required alternate fire protection features such as standpipes, dry hydrants, etc. that are acceptable to the authority haivng jurisidiction.  (see exception number 2.)

503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or

portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall

comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the

facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the

exterior of the building or facility.

Exception: The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45 720 mm)where:

1. The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or

903.3.1.3.

2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar

conditions, and *an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided.*

3. There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group U occupancies.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 26, 2011)

Builder Bob, I agree completely.; nobody is saying they don't have to meet Sec 503 of the fire code. Be careful about mixing apples and oranges. The section you posted is universal for all buildings whether they have 60' yards or no yards.

 Please note however, that the distance can be increased for fully sprinklered buildings.

But it is a stand alone requirement, and is not related to the unlimited area provisions.

If they meet the fire code, and meet 507 for unlimited buildings, why does it matter if part of the 60' yard slope is 3:1?


----------



## RJJ (Apr 26, 2011)

It doesn't matter unless it restricts access!

BB: Thanks for the section that is the one I was referring to. Just didn't have the book in the office/


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 26, 2011)

> The proposed building will have about 40 feet level at the back of the building, then it's uphill at a 3:1


Should not be a problem for the FD either. As brudgers pointed out they may be calling it a Type V but I bet the exterior walls are concrete block.


----------



## Jobsaver (Apr 26, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> And I think the intent is increased separation from other structures as much or more than it is for fire access. But regardless, a yard is a yard.
> 
> Lastly, the authors of the handbooks are no more experts than many of the members here; I'd place my trust in the interpretation of members of this forum before I would ICC.


I just completed a _Nonstructural Fire and Life Safety Principles _class put on by Jay Woodard, an ICC Staff Architect and instructor. The emphasis on the reason the yards are required is simply to increase separation to the point that other criteria become unimportant. The apparent emphasis was an emphasis on doing no harm to a neighboring structure, not an emphasis on the subject building being saved.

Texasbo and the ICC are, at last, one! (haha)


----------



## agb4 (Apr 26, 2011)

507.3 does not allow unlimited area with Type 5 construction.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 26, 2011)

agb4 said:
			
		

> 507.3 does not allow unlimited area with Type 5 construction.


507.3 does not *prohibit* unlimited area with Type V construction


----------



## RLGA (Apr 26, 2011)

agb4:

To clarify Mark's comment, the Type V restriction in 507.3 only applies to buildings with an A-4 occupancy group.


----------



## High Desert (Apr 26, 2011)

The 60 foot yards are not for access, they are for separation from other buildings. You can have tanks, towers, generators, etc. in the 60 foot yard. See attached ICC interpretation.

http://www2.iccsafe.org/cs/committeeArea/pdf_file/BU_00_20_03.pdf


----------



## texasbo (Apr 26, 2011)

RLGA said:
			
		

> agb4:To clarify Mark's comment, the Type V restriction in 507.3 only applies to buildings with an A-4 occupancy group.


Beat me to it. B,F,M,S may be of any type. it's only A-4 that cannot be type V.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 26, 2011)

RLGA said:
			
		

> agb4:To clarify Mark's comment, the Type V restriction in 507.3 only applies to buildings with an A-4 occupancy group.


Thanks Ron I was referring  to the Original Post of a mixed use occupancy of M & S-1.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 26, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> I just completed a _Nonstructural Fire and Life Safety Principles _class put on by Jay Woodard, an ICC Staff Architect and instructor. The emphasis on the reason the yards are required is simply to increase separation to the point that other criteria become unimportant. The apparent emphasis was an emphasis on doing no harm to a neighboring structure, not an emphasis on the subject building being saved.Texasbo and the ICC are, at last, one! (haha)


Say it ain't so! Actually, Jay is a sharp guy, as are Ken Larsen and Hamid Naderi.


----------



## ewenme (Apr 26, 2011)

Please correct me if I am wrong, than a question:  Type V construction is conventional light frame construction.  How do 23' reinforced fully grouted CMU walls fit in with Type V construction?

 It will be a sad day when I go to the dark side and admit that Type V construction can be unlimited in area.  This would never happen under the UBC!


----------



## RLGA (Apr 26, 2011)

Type V may include conventional framing, but the description of Type V per the IBC is a building constructed "of any materials permitted by this code."

So, you can have a complete concrete only building and call it Type V if it is within the height and area requirements for a Type V building.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 26, 2011)

"This would never happen under the UBC! "

Oh, Ewenme, you shouldn't have said that.

505.2, 1994 UBC:

"The area of any one or two story building of Groups B; F Division 1 or 2; M; S Division 1,2,3,4, or 5; and H Division 5 Occupancies shall not be limited if the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system...and is entirely surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet in width"

I'm 100% in favor of re-adopting the 1988 UBC, however.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 26, 2011)

I also thought it was in there...............just hadn't got there yet. 505.2 in the 1997 UBC also.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 26, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> Please correct me if I am wrong, than a question:  Type V construction is conventional light frame construction.  How do 23' reinforced fully grouted CMU walls fit in with Type V construction? It will be a sad day when I go to the dark side and admit that Type V construction can be unlimited in area.  This would never happen under the UBC!


You are wrong.

Type V construction is construction which meets the requirements of Type V construction.

Type V does not require combustible materials such as wood - it simply allows their use.


----------



## ewenme (Apr 26, 2011)

I have the real answer now.  After much discussion, I asked the right question:  why would they choose the 'worst' type of construction when that's not what is shown on the plans?  MONEY.  Type 5-B construction is valued much less per square foot than Type I-B construction.  It all comes down to money.  I can see now that a $5 million building of Type V-B construction would cost less in terms of permit fees, taxes, etc., than a true-valued 130,000 sq. ft. Type I-B building...all because of the value difference by type of construction. Geesh.

My head hurts.  I will definitely look at things with more skepticism... bordering on cynical, here. :banghditty


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 26, 2011)

> all because of the value difference by type of construction. Geesh


That is why you use the contract price for valuation not a valuation table based on occupancy and construction type. Most unlimited area box stores will designate a V-B construction type because of the flexibility it provides for the future remodels and changes that will happen during the life of that building.


----------



## ewenme (Apr 26, 2011)

Brudgers:

To you I'm wrong. To me, Type V-B includes conventional light frame construction, and is most commonly used for that.  If you start looking for the positive, you'll find it.

Thanks to texasbo, fatboy, et al... I very much enjoyed the code discussion that my OP stirred up.  And, I learned a valuable lesson: never be afraid to discuss.:cheers


----------



## fatboy (Apr 26, 2011)

It was a great discussion..........on a great site!


----------



## brudgers (Apr 26, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> I have the real answer now.  After much discussion, I asked the right question:  why would they choose the 'worst' type of construction when that's not what is shown on the plans?  MONEY.  Type 5-B construction is valued much less per square foot than Type I-B construction.  It all comes down to money.  I can see now that a $5 million building of Type V-B construction would cost less in terms of permit fees, taxes, etc., than a true-valued 130,000 sq. ft. Type I-B building...all because of the value difference by type of construction. Geesh.  My head hurts.  I will definitely look at things with more skepticism... bordering on cynical, here. :banghditty


That's what you get for basing permit fees on construction type and square feet rather than actual cost of construction.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 26, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> Brudgers:To you I'm wrong. To me, Type V-B includes conventional light frame construction, and is most commonly used for that.  If you start looking for the positive, you'll find it.


Sorry, but if you are a code official, and you don't know the difference between conventional wood framing and Type V construction you should take up cosmetology or floral arranging an leave regulations to people who actually read the code.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 26, 2011)

> Sorry, but if you are a code official, and you don't know the difference between conventional wood framing and Type V construction you should take up cosmetology or floral arranging an leave regulations to people who actually read the code.


Funny.  I could say the same thing about someone who doesn't know when to require a 13, 13R, or 13D sprinkler system.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 26, 2011)

Brudgers: It has been a good discussion so far! No need to attack ewenme! This lady does read the code and has been around the block a few times. She has raise an excellent question with a great deal of respond. No reason to put a lick in on someone when not deserved.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 26, 2011)

> Type V-B includes conventional light frame construction, and is most commonly used for that


You are correct and it is the only construction type it can fit in all other construction types begin with "in which the exterior walls are of noncombustible materials"

Ignore the personal attack and continue to expand your knowledge.

He may have just been upset because you caught an item missed by both the architect and engineer :cheers


----------



## pwood (Apr 26, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> I have a 130,000 sq. ft. building, with mixed use occupancy of M & S-1. The Architect is claiming Unlimited Area AND Type V-B construction, quoting '09 IBC 507.3. I disagree with his call, citing Table 503, and Section 508.3.2, which references 503.1. The building is fully sprinklered throughout, however there are no fire separation walls. FYI: This is a Wal-Mart addition and full gut-remodel. I'd like to hear how others would call it.


ewenme,

   i just plan checked and issued a similar permit with the same issues. there was about 100' of building perimeter less than 60' and greater than 40' that met the exception in 507.3 for reduced yard width and 3 hour construction.  i came up with the same conclusion as the others, it is allowed. the plans were not bad, but i think the architects get  paid by the page and number of details they can put in a set of plans. a whole lotta fluff in them plans!


----------



## ewenme (Apr 26, 2011)

permit guy, RJJ, MTlogcabin and pwood: Thank you for your kind thoughts.  I'm not the only one who has ever had the brunt of brudgers pointed stick, and I probably won't be the last. The architect and I had a very good discussion on this, and he agreed that what he had on his plans would qualify as Type I-B construction. He said he'd never been questioned about it before, which is why I posted my question here, to see what others have to say. I've gone to the dark side and agree that it can be Type V-B, but I don't like the reasoning behind it. Sprinklers, for me, are not the end-all be-all of construction. If I were caught in that store in a fire situation, I'd rather have a clear path to the exit; and if you've ever been in a big box store, you know the aisles are not always clear. If I look stupid for asking a question, that's OK... I know I'm not stupid. And, I deal with the ugly side of being a code official more than the pretty side.


----------



## JBI (Apr 26, 2011)

When 'brudgers' has his grouch on, nobody is imune from his barbs. When he gets over himself again we'll see more constructive posts...

A very good discussion, and quite frankly a VERY common misconception about VB.

When it was part of my job description, our fee schedule was based on one of two numbers; the applicants estimated cost of construction OR our office's calculated cost based on square footage. When Wal-Mart submitted they actually put down a HUGE number (but they did have an 18' cut into rock on one side of the site and an 18' fill section on the opposite side; major improvements to one State Highway that included partial modification of an on ramp and an off ramp for a major highway; substantial improvements to a County Highway that included a new traffic light; and abadonment of one portion of a Town Road with improvements to the remainder of that road. Did I mention modifications to a regulated watercourse?) Even if they did lowball the number, our fee was sustantial and more than adequately covered our costs associated with the project.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 26, 2011)

> When it was part of my job description, our fee schedule was based on one of two numbers; the applicants estimated cost of construction OR our office's calculated cost based on square footage. When Wal-Mart submitted they actually put down a HUGE number (but they did have an 18' cut into rock on one side of the site and an 18' fill section on the opposite side; major improvements to one State Highway that included partial modification of an on ramp and an off ramp for a major highway; substantial improvements to a County Highway that included a new traffic light; and abadonment of one portion of a Town Road with improvements to the remainder of that road. Did I mention modifications to a regulated watercourse?) Even if they did lowball the number, our fee was sustantial and more than adequately covered our costs associated with the project


WOW ours is based on the cost of the building only. We do not even include the parking lot let alone the improvements you mentioned.


----------



## ewenme (Apr 26, 2011)

The Wal-Mart project was submitted with a 'bid estimate' as it hasn't gone out to bid yet... and their bid estimate was waaaaaaay over what our numbers showed. public works/water/sewer/storm water are all done by the Public Works department and the building permit covers just the building portion of the work. There are also permits for Electrical, HVAC and plumbing. We did not count the cost of the parking lot and landscaping. Needless to say, we'll be at their beck and call when it comes time for the quick inspections: they are paying for them!

On a different note: I often play the devil's advocate when I ask questions. Brudgers' meanness only encourages me!  And I am looking forward to retirement so I can go tend to knitting and sewing, and granddaughters...and my garden.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 27, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> The architect and I had a very good discussion on this, and he agreed that what he had on his plans would qualify as Type I-B construction. He said he'd never been questioned about it before, which is why I posted my question here, to see what others have to say. I've gone to the dark side and agree that it can be Type V-B, but I don't like the reasoning behind it. Sprinklers, for me, are not the end-all be-all of construction. If I were caught in that store in a fire situation, I'd rather have a clear path to the exit; and if you've ever been in a big box store, you know the aisles are not always clear.


Ewenme, we've all been faced with the prospect of classifying a building in a category that is not intuitive to us. Just keep 602.1.1 in mind: we can't require a building "to conform to the details of a type of construction higher than that type, which meets the minimum requirements based on occupancy, even though certain features of such building actually conform to a higher type of construction." Sometimes the permit applicant will actually request classification to the higher type, and sometimes they won't.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 27, 2011)

JBI said:
			
		

> When 'brudgers' .... gets over himself again we'll see more constructive posts...


Yes, I too am looking forward to contributions to the Monty Python threads.


----------



## steveray (Apr 27, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Yes, I too am looking forward to contributions to the Monty Python threads.


Always look on the bright side of construction types!


----------



## brudgers (Apr 27, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> permit guy, RJJ, MTlogcabin and pwood: Thank you for your kind thoughts.  I'm not the only one who has ever had the brunt of brudgers pointed stick, and I probably won't be the last. The architect and I had a very good discussion on this, and he agreed that what he had on his plans would qualify as Type I-B construction. He said he'd never been questioned about it before, which is why I posted my question here, to see what others have to say. I've gone to the dark side and agree that it can be Type V-B, but I don't like the reasoning behind it. Sprinklers, for me, are not the end-all be-all of construction. If I were caught in that store in a fire situation, I'd rather have a clear path to the exit; and if you've ever been in a big box store, you know the aisles are not always clear. If I look stupid for asking a question, that's OK... I know I'm not stupid. And, I deal with the ugly side of being a code official more than the pretty side.


The design professional is responsible for classifying the construction  type - the code official is responsible for reviewing the design against  the requirements of the code including those for the construction type.

If his plans said "VB construction" then they would never qualify as IB. Ever.

I have little sympathy for anyone who views correctly applying the code as going over to the dark side.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 27, 2011)

Nobody cares what or who you have sympathy for; you're not nearly that important.

There are 1131 members of this forum, and 1130 of them are here to help other members. One is here to try to make other people feel small. It doesn't take a psychologist to determine what kind of serious personality disorders go into making that kind of person.


----------



## TJacobs (Apr 27, 2011)

Firefighters train on type of construction to establish tactics and strategy, pre-plans, etc.  That is not a game.

The fire department protecting the building needs to get in the building during construction so they know what is actually there and not rely on a type of construction designation chosen by a design professional for a reason other than an accurate description of the construction type.

Our fees are the greater of the stated construction cost or the BVD chart just for that reason.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 27, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Nobody cares what or who you have sympathy for; you're not nearly that important. There are 1131 members of this forum, and 1130 of them are here to help other members. One is here to try to make other people feel small. It doesn't take a psychologist to determine what kind of serious personality disorders go into making that kind of person.


Now I feel so small.


----------



## Jobsaver (Apr 27, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Now I feel so small.


Thats what she said.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 27, 2011)

> Firefighters train on type of construction to establish tactics and strategy, pre-plans, etc.



Do you train on building code types of construction or ISO defined? Can be a big difference. 

ISO defines six construction classes for commercial buildings.



1. Frame - buildings with more than 1/3 of the total wall area of combustible materials
​


2. Joisted Masonry - buildings with 2/3 or more of the total wall area of masonry or fire-resistive materials, and more

than 1/3 of the total floor and roof area of combustible materials
​


3. Noncombustible - buildings with 2/3 or more of the total wall area and 2/3 or more of the floor and roof area of

noncombustible materials
​


4. Masonry Noncombustible - buildings with 2/3 or more of the total wall area of masonry or fire-resistive materials, and

2/3 or more of the total floor and roof area of noncombustible materials
​


5. Modified Fire Resistive - buildings with 2/3 or more of the total wall, floor, and roof area of masonry or materials with

a fire resistance rating of not less than one hour
​

6. Fire Resistive - buildings with 2/3 or more of the total wall, floor, and roof area of masonry or materials with a fire
​resistance rating of not less than two hours

Brudgers is correct the design proffessional classifies the construction type it is the building code officials job to review the plans to meet the designated construction type. All buildings will meet Type VB just like a IA will meet a IIB and can be classified as such. As a plans examiner there is nothing wrong in asking a DP why they choose to go to a lower classification that is how we learn and understand another persons prespective. It also could be an error on the cover sheet as to the construction type and the designer may say Thank You for pointing that out.

Remember; 

If you buy the statement you buy the underlying assumption

This applies to plan reviews also


----------



## RLGA (Apr 27, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> All buildings will meet Type VB


I think I know what you mean, but this is over simplification.

All buildings will comply with the *material and fire-resistive* requirements for Type VB construction.  However, to be considered a Type VB building it must also be within the height and area requirements for Type VB.


----------



## TJacobs (Apr 27, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Do you train on building code types of construction or ISO defined? Can be a big difference.
> 
> ISO defines six construction classes for commercial buildings.
> ​
> ...


NFPA also has construction type definitions and that is what we used back in the day...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 27, 2011)

Lets see a super Wal-Mart at about 140,000 sq ft designated Type V construction unlimited area by the designer requires 8,000 GPM of fire flow. The same building Type IIB would be 4,000 GPM.  Don't let them claim another type of construction or automaticaly take the 75% reduction to the fire flow requirements on an unlimited area building of Type V construction.


----------



## ewenme (Apr 27, 2011)

RLGA: my point originally: Does 130,000 square feet meet the height and area requirements? with 60 ft yards? with sprinklers?  Seems the over-simplification arises from the 'sprinklers': they evidently cover a multitude of life-safety issues and one should not question.  The Fire Marshal and I had some deep discussions of the timing of 'removal of the existing sprinkler system', installation of the new fire hydrants, and how long the existing building would be 'non-fire-protected' during construction. Fire Marshal gave the ultimatum:  you will put in the new hydrants before you disconnect the existing system or START CONSTRUCTION.  I'm with him 100% on this. Although the only casualty would be the existing building, there would be fire fighters impacted and they're worth more than the building.


----------



## Coug Dad (Apr 27, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Lets see a super Wal-Mart at about 140,000 sq ft designated Type V construction unlimited area by the designer requires 8,000 GPM of fire flow. The same building Type IIB would be 4,000 GPM.  Don't let them claim another type of construction or automaticaly take the 75% reduction to the fire flow requirements on an unlimited area building of Type V construction.


But with the 75% reduction for sprinklers in the 2009 IFC it would still be managable either way.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 27, 2011)

> However, to be considered a Type VB building it must also be within the height and area requirements for Type VB.


Disagree footnote "a" to table 503 gives general exceptions to the table that is applied to all construction types.

Height is limited to one or two story depending on occupancy type.

Area can be unlimited depending on occupancy type and a 60 ft open space around the building.

Coug Dad

i agree I just did not make my point very well. Don't let the DP tell the BD it is Type V and the FD see it is all concrete and call it a Type IIB. The review and requirements need to be consistant throughout


----------



## Architect1281 (Apr 27, 2011)

did I miss something in the begining discussion relating to the 507 unlimited area application of the code.

mine reads "IN OTHER THAN TYPE V (5)" so type 5 cannot be unlimited by use, by fire supression, by increased fire seperation distance ??

I'm going to duck and cover now!


----------



## permitguy (Apr 27, 2011)

That only applies to the A-4 occupancy designation.  The other occupancies listed may be of any construction type.


----------



## Architect1281 (Apr 27, 2011)

Ok 41 (1970 Boca was my first)  years of code reading and I always wondered why it was worded or, then or, again. Now I see what was hidden before;

That is my new piece of knowledge for today; Thank-you Permit Guy.

Now I have to spend the evening reading NFPA 1124 cause consumer fireworks are now legal in RI. KABOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## High Desert (Apr 27, 2011)

Regarding the Type V construction issue, if you look at Section 507.4, you can have a 2-story B, F, M or S of unlimited size with no mention of construction type. So if you can have a 2-story unlimited building of any type of construction then you should able to do the same with a 1-story. Provided you meet all the other requirments. And I agree, the Type V in Section 507.3 is for A-4 occupancies.


----------



## Examiner (Apr 28, 2011)

Someone please tell me why the reviewer thinks the 60-foot yard at the back is not allowed to have any kind of slope?  I did not know it had to be relatively flat.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 28, 2011)

There is no requirement for slope.


----------



## High Desert (Apr 28, 2011)

Examiner, you're right. In fact you can have other things in those yards such as garbage compactors, towers, generator, etc., just no other buildings.


----------



## jannypan (May 16, 2011)

I'm with Mark.........


----------



## Builder Bob (May 17, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> But with the 75% reduction for sprinklers in the 2009 IFC it would still be managable either way.


 The 75% reduction is the maximum allowed...not given right away.   Generally, we qualify Automatic Sprinkler reduction at 50% with additional factors for occupancy either adding or subtracting to the 50%.  A maximum of 75% has been granted for sprinkler systems (low hazard) , A minimum of 25% has been granted for high hazard.


----------

