# Addition of attached garage



## MikeC (Feb 14, 2013)

I was just emailed this photo.  Somebody saw it on facebook and was concerned.  It is an open permit.  The last inspection was a framing inspection in late 2012.  The original plans showed the window being eliminated, a rated door assembly, and the venting of appliances being being relocated.The majority of it is pretty straight forward.  My main question is about the appliance venting.  I don't currently have much time to dig through the books, but I am thinking it should be treated as a duct based on 2009 IRC R302.5.2.  Any thoughts?

View attachment 1762


View attachment 1762


/monthly_2013_02/garage.jpg.d1ec7bf9dc8a3bca9a935d1c35efe3db.jpg


----------



## fatboy (Feb 14, 2013)

I agree, although I don't understand why it calls out 3/4 PB and doesn't allow 1/2 sheetrock.


----------



## MikeC (Feb 14, 2013)

Not sure what you mean fatboy?

The more I read, it seems that though this only applies to penetrations between the garage and the _dwelling_.  Is the basement part of the dwelling?  The definition of dwelling does seem to include the entire building.  It looks to me like the PVC pipe is either gonna be duct work (if the appliance allows for metal duct to be used) or it is just flat out not going to be allowed without some kind protection.


----------



## Sifu (Feb 15, 2013)

I am not sure the appliance vent would be considered a duct.  Is the intent of 302.5.2 to prevent the products of combustion from being conveyed into the mechanical system or residence through the duct system, which by definition transmits air as opposed to a vent which transmits flue gases?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 15, 2013)

If it cracks like a duct, it's a duct. A vent doesn't.


----------



## MikeC (Feb 15, 2013)

So, by definition in the 2009 IRC, the exhaust is a vent.  At the same time, the intake pipe is a duct.  I really don't wanna get into this discussion right now.

All I wanna know is if other see these penetrations as acceptable or not and why.  The more I read into it, the more it seems like it will be allowed, even though I don't like it.  R302.5.3 sends you to R302.11, item 4.  Item 4 only applies to ceiling / floor penetrations.


----------



## north star (Feb 15, 2013)

*# = #*

Do you know what kind of appliances the pvc pipe is attached to?

Also, where does the "basement" part of your statement come in

to play?....I see a Garage in your pic.

*& + &*


----------



## ICE (Feb 15, 2013)

I don't see a metal duck.  I do see pvc pipe through what may be a basement wall.  So which is it and why three pvc pipes?

Hilti collars will fix it right up.


----------



## north star (Feb 15, 2013)

*( = = )*

MikeC,

I do not see the pvc pipe as being acceptable, ...not metal [ RE:

Section R302.5.2, `09 IRC ].....Any penetrations in that wall would

need to be sealed with an approved material, such as the Hilti

collars that **ICE** mentioned, or other.

*( = = )*


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Feb 15, 2013)

When it's not duct it's other penetrations







Francis


----------



## MikeC (Feb 15, 2013)

Okay, so we have determined that none of these pipes are ducts - that eliminates the use of R302.5.2.  These are also not openings which will eliminate R302.5.1.  So, based on this, they become "other penetrations" through the separation required by R302.6.  That sends you to R302.11, item 4.  R302.11, item 4 only addresses ceiling/floor penetrations.  That leads me to believe that this is okay.

As for the three pipes, I am not sure.  I will find out more during the next inspection when I make sure the alteration to the venting system is compliant.  As for not seeing a basement, the steps on the right of the photo is the floor level of the first floor.  The thought of dwelling came from my confusion between the definition of "dwelling" and "dwelling unit".  In this case, the entire building, including the basement, is a dwelling.


----------



## ICE (Feb 16, 2013)

The foam and caulk are good enough to seal the annular space around a penetrating item.  However, if the item is something that will melt, deform or ignite, it takes a collar

http://www.hilti.com/holcom/page/module/product/prca_rangedetail.jsf?lang=en&nodeId=-16218


----------



## MikeC (Feb 16, 2013)

I agree with the need for some sort of protection.  I also agree that just caulk shouldn't be enough.  Tell me where to find the requirement for this protection in the 2009 IRC.  I told you a few posts ago how I got to where I did.  If you disagree, PLEASE tell me how to get there.  Without that, I can only highly recommend the use of some sort of intumescent material. At this point in the project and the fact that they finished over a month ago without calling for a final inspection leads me to believe that they aren't gonna be very receptive to anything I have to recommend.  They are only gonna listen to what I say is required.  Once again, show me where I can require protection of the pipes and or penetrations of the wall.


----------



## north star (Feb 16, 2013)

*( = )*

MikeC,

So, we have determined that your application is a basement, and

not an attached Garage?.....If it is going to be a basement, will it

be habitable?

FWIW, ...the picture sure looks like an attached Garage!....Please

clarify a little bit more so that we can assist you better......Thanks!

*( = )*


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Feb 16, 2013)

Take it easy between the garage and dwelling a fire-stop system and intumescent caulk is not required, in fact the sealant does not have to be non-combustible.

Francis


----------



## MikeC (Feb 16, 2013)

north star said:
			
		

> *( = )*MikeC,
> 
> So, we have determined that your application is a basement, and
> 
> ...


Okay, the addition is a garage.  The potential issue in question is the PVC appliance venting coming out of the basement, through a foundation wall (also the fire membrane), into the garage, and then out the garage to the termination.

There is no doubt in my mind that, in the event of a fire in the garage, this PVC would fail long before the 1/2 gypsum board.  That would leave an open penetration in the common wall between the dwelling and the garage.  We have determined that the PVC is not a duct.  Back to the question - If this penetration requires any special requirements, what are they and where in the 2009 IRC do I find them?

Francis, I am well aware of that.  Standard silicon will do the job.  The IRC jsut says _approved_ which leaves it up to me.  That even makes sense with wiring, copper and iron pipe.  That will not typically fail prior to the gypsum board.  The PVC will fail.


----------



## ICE (Feb 16, 2013)

Section R302.6 establishes that there shall be a fire separation per Table 302.6

Section R302.5 establishes that penetrations shall be protected in accordance with sections R302.5.1 through R302.5.3

Section R302.5.3 deals with your penetration example.  It further states that the protection shall comply with R302.11, Item 4.

The wall between an attached garage and dwelling is not a rated wall.  It is a "fire separation".  The codes for membrane and through penetrations do not apply.  The only code that applies to penetrating pipes is R302.11 item 4.

I recognize that Item four says "at ceiling and floor level".  That's OK because Item 4 also says "At openings around vents, pipes, ducts, cables and wires" and that's the relevant part.

There appears to be a mistake in my copy of the code.  Section R302.5.3 indicates that it only applies to the separation required by Section R309.2.

Section R309.2 applies to carports and there is no required "fire separation" at a carport.



> R302.6 Dwelling/garage and/or carport fire separation. Thegarage and/or carport shall be separated as required by Table
> 
> R302.6. Openings in garage walls shall comply with Section
> 
> ...





> R302.5 Dwelling/garage opening/penetration protection.Openings and penetrations through the walls or ceilings separating
> 
> the dwelling from the garage shall be in accordance with
> 
> ...





> R302.11 Fireblocking. In combustible construction,fireblocking shall be provided to cut off all concealed draft
> 
> openings (both vertical and horizontal) and to form an effective
> 
> ...





> R309.2 Carports. Carports shall be open on at least two sides.Carport floor surfaces shall be of approved noncombustible
> 
> material. Carports not open on at least two sides shall be considered
> 
> ...


Years ago, the wall was referred to as a "modified one hour wall".  The modification was the elimination of the 5/8" Type X on the dwelling side of the wall.  In all other respects, the wall was treated as a one hour rated wall.

Now we have a required layer of drywall that must be fireblocked.  Apparently cars aren't burning with the same regularity as they have in the past.  Myself, I wouldn't take a chance with that.

In practice, the current code works well enough because few people other than code officials are aware of the watering down. The contractors that do know about this haven't adopted the new approach....yet.  Home owners and their Home Depot crews are clueless so you can have your way with them.


----------



## ICE (Feb 17, 2013)

MikeC said:
			
		

> The IRC jsut says _approved_ which leaves it up to me.


APPROVED. Meeting the approval of the enforcing agency,

except as otherwise provided by law, when used in connection

with any system, material, type of construction, fixture or

appliance *as the result of investigations and tests conducted by*

*the agency, or by reason of accepted principles or tests by*

*national authorities or technical, health, or scientific organizations*

*or agencies.*



That tends to limit what you can approve so it's not really up to you.


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 17, 2013)

I'd suggest a soffit over the PVC with a layer of drywall over the framing.  No collars needed.


----------



## MikeC (Feb 17, 2013)

TJacobs,  I had that thought.  I was just looking for the requirement in the IRC.  I like being able to back up any any requirement with a code section.  I this case, I still don't see that requirement.  The soffit would probably be the most simple and cheap answer .... short of just relocating the vents like the plans showed.


----------



## TheCommish (Feb 18, 2013)

I always  like when they build the pictures that have been submitted and reviewed, that usalualy meens the project wold be code complinat. When something is done that is not on the filed plans it is call an admendment, which then requiers review for code complaiance.

so at this point in the project the applicanant sould submit a admendment for a the proposed change and reviewand the proper comments and corrections be issued to the submittal.

i do not thik it is the inspectors job to tell the applicant how to be code compliant rather it is the applicants  responsiblity to ensure and show if nesassary the project is code complaint. Of course that means inspectors need to be on their toes.


----------



## ICE (Feb 18, 2013)

TheCommish said:
			
		

> Of course that means inspectors need to be on their toes.


I'm usually on their toes.


----------



## MikeC (Feb 18, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> APPROVED. Meeting the approval of the enforcing agency,except as otherwise provided by law, when used in connection
> 
> with any system, material, type of construction, fixture or
> 
> ...


I was trained that any time a word in the code is italicized, it is defined in the definition section.  In this case, the word approved is italicized.  The difinition section of the IRC defines approved as: Acceptable to the building official.

Obviously I will require some sort of supporting documentation, testing results, etc......, but it is clearly up to me.  The code restricts me from requiring it to meet ASTM E 136 in this case. This tells me that standard caulking should be adequate.


----------



## ICE (Feb 18, 2013)

> ASTM E136Significance and Use
> 
> While actual building fire exposure conditions are not duplicated, this test method will assist in indicating those materials which do not act to aid combustion or add appreciable heat to an ambient fire.
> 
> ...


It doesn't need to be gluten free either.


----------

