# Installing fire door assembly between dwelling units in a two-family dwelling?



## jonboy (Aug 7, 2011)

Here's the basic question:

Given the IRC, section R317.1 Two-family dwellings. Dwelling units in two-family dwellings shall be separated from each other by wall and/or floor assemblies having not less than a 1-hour fire-resistance rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E 119.

Would the IRC permit a 1-hr rated fire door assembly (frame and door) in a fire wall assembly between dwelling units in an existing two-family dwelling, per IBC section 705.8?

The situation is there is an existing 80 year old duplex that was converted legally from a 1 family home to a 2 family 70 years ago.  The duplex was created, internally, separating two dwelling units, by converting an existing doorway into a wall (I assume by framing in with 2x4s plus gypsum and plaster with possible insulation).

The owner would like to remove the wall in-fill, recover the original doorway, and install a 1 hour fire-rated door assembly in the original opening.  She lives in one smaller unit and rents the other seasonally.  It remains empty during the off-season, and she uses it during that time by going outside and going in the main entry door.

This is problematic, going back and forth outside, especially in bad weather.  Of course there is nothing in the IRC that says the owner cannot occupy both dwelling units, and since this is America, I am hard-pressed to tell her there isn't a way to accommodate her request, but to do this with permits, she will have to get the town building official to approve it, and he's strict.

I am encouraging her to do it right, with permits, and want make sure the permit request is solid.

There are fire door frames that meet ASTM E 119 for 1 hour fire separation, and plenty of doors that meet ASTM 1 hour protection.

As far as safety, providing the access for her seasonally doubles her egress/exit doors;  an ASTM 1 hour fire rated door assembly satisfies the intent of the IRC, and is possibly superior to what she has existing in the doorway.

The IBC provides for openings in fire walls, and, essentially, the owner wants the same kind of access that adjoining sleeping rooms/dwelling units have in a hotel or apartment hotel.  Access locked from both sides.  This is America, a man, or woman's home is their castle.  How can we make this happen?

I saw an older discussion about a similar issue in a townhouse property over a lot split, which created a party wall situation, but we don't have that here, that's another complication clearly.

Any help would be appreciated, with code to back it up as that always helps!

Thanks in advance!


----------



## fatboy (Aug 7, 2011)

First jonboy.........welcome to the forum. As to the question, although the IRC is silent on the issue, other than the wall between units, I would opt to the IBC to support allowing a 3/4 hour opening protection. (door)


----------



## RJJ (Aug 8, 2011)

Welcome to the BB and I agree with Fatboy!


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 8, 2011)

What my esteemed collegues said...don't forget self-closing.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 8, 2011)

Not sure that is in the scope of the IRC and have an issue with allowing a 45 minute door. Generally opening protectives are allowed to be reduced in rating compared to the wall opening because it is understood that combustibles will not be placed against the door (i.e. opening protective). I would not have an issue with using a 60 minute rated door as long as the fire barrier extends from the fondation to the roof ---- Otherwise you are building the titanic ----- the water compartments did not extend up tot he upper decks, so as one compartment filled, it was allowed to flow into the next water compartment --- and so on.

Smoke and fire gases are based upon fluid mechanics, thus it works the same as water just you have to visualize the effects upside down and a little faster!


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 8, 2011)

Welcome.  I also agree, but not sure the self closing is needed.  Like in a hotel, when two adjacent rooms are used as a suite, the connecting door is left open.  The connecting doors are not self closing.  If the two adjacent rooms are used separately, the two doors accross the opening are closed and locked from each side.


----------



## Big Mac (Aug 9, 2011)

The main difference between the hotel condition and the 80 year old house is that the hotel is likely a sprinklered building.  At least let's hope so.  I vote for the 1-HR self closing door.


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 10, 2011)

If you are using the IBC as an alternate, then fire doors are self-closing.


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 11, 2011)

The doors in hotels are often not self closing.  If the adjacent rooms have separate occupants, the doors are closed and locked providing the required protection.


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 11, 2011)

2006 IBC:

_715.4.7 Door closing._

_Fire doors shall be self- or automatic closing in accordance with this section. _

_Exceptions: _

_1. Fire doors located in common walls separating sleeping units in Group R-1 shall be permitted without automatic- or self-closing devices._

_2. The elevator car doors and the associated hoistway enclosure doors at the floor level designated for recall in accordance with Section 3003.2 shall be permitted to remain open during Phase I emergency recall operation._

Does not look like they meet the exceptions, plus what Big Mac said.  Don't know if 2009 or 2012 changed.


----------

