# Unprotected Openings in Residential Buildings (R2) -exterior wall horizontal distance



## Buildrightson (Sep 20, 2020)

Hi All,

I have a question regarding unprotected openings on an exterior wall, for a residential building of many suites (R2). 
What is the horizontal separation distance between the openings of a suite.

Keep in mind, between a suite, no firewall is needed. Simply a fire partition. Lets assume:

no buildings are nearby and the lot line is so far away that no restrictions on openings are required.
non-combustible construction, ie concrete
sprinklered (does this even matter to my question)

In this case, we have a 1-hour rated fire separation between suites (or dwellings), highlighted in *yellow.*
But I'm curious, what is the minimum distance for *X,* shown in *red. *
*Please see the image here:*
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KO8b8HfqRBBmzbpL-v_fd0_V1fWbNz7l/view?usp=sharing*

I often see a scenario of a firewall, where the separation the firewall must be wrapped into the exterior wall (in the presence of a balcony, or walls at an angle of 135 degrees or less):
*fire wall extension at exterior wall, when balcony or projection exist
fire wall extension at exterior walls that meet at 90 degree*

I appreciate any help. To be honest, I'm struggling with fire separation and how to learn the requirements. It's very difficult to interpret the rules from code, and any recommendation on where I should go to read and learn about fire separations would be a huge help!


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2020)

Welcome there are some Canadians on the site

Will you define type::::   residential building of many suites (R2).

I don’t speak that code, give it a few days

Separation may not be required


----------



## Buildrightson (Sep 20, 2020)

Thanks CDA,

It looks like only one Occupancy Category for residential in our Canadian NBC. "Occupancy Group C".  (So this would be under the NBC Part 3.)

Glad I found this site.
Best regards!


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2020)

Trying to say what is the business ??

hotel

apartment

other???


----------



## Buildrightson (Sep 20, 2020)

Oh, 
Primarily apartment, permanent residence.
Although I'm knowing how this would apply to a hotel type as well.

Thanks!


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2020)

Ok

I am thinking unless the C Code says different, I don’t think separation is required.

Give it a few days and let the folks up north respond.


----------



## my250r11 (Sep 21, 2020)

Maybe TMURRAY will chime in


----------



## Sifu (Sep 23, 2020)

I think our equivalent code would start at IBC 420, which requires the fire partition, then go to 708 for fire partitions, which do not restrict that dimension.  Also need to go to 705 for exterior walls, which contain some restrictions on openings but not specifically that dimension.  So I don't think there is a minimum.


----------



## Buildrightson (Sep 23, 2020)

Sifu said:


> I think our equivalent code would start at IBC 420, which requires the fire partition, then go to 708 for fire partitions, which do not restrict that dimension.  Also need to go to 705 for exterior walls, which contain some restrictions on openings but not specifically that dimension.  So I don't think there is a minimum.



Hey thanks Sifu,

Looks like there isn't. Although...

Isn't there a minimum vertical separation distance for unprotected openings? (ie. between floors - a spandrel of some height)
What about when there are balcony projections, ie a common balcony that isn't divided (only privacy screens)? (the concern here being fire spread from one unit to the other, under the balcony ceiling)
I'm going to look into this further...seems like a pretty grey area.

Best regards!


----------



## Sifu (Sep 23, 2020)

Buildrightson said:


> Hey thanks Sifu,
> 
> Looks like there isn't. Although...
> 
> ...


Still need to look at IBC 705-exterior walls for these answers (my guess is that you have an equivalent code section up north).  Not sure how to link to another thread but we recently had a discussion about "projections" pertaining to this.  Not sure a definitive answer can be found.  If I don't get it right maybe someone else can provide the link.






						Dwelling unit separation at balcony
					

I don't have a good argument, so I am going to go with you are not "in" the building so not required....The intent of the tenant separations are to keep a fire from spreading from unit to unit or from building in a unit and then blowing through to the next....The termination requirements for...



					www.thebuildingcodeforum.com


----------



## Buildrightson (Sep 24, 2020)

Thanks again. Still working on this.

In the meantime, I've found some examples that may portray the code requirements (in Canada for this case) for the balcony projection, I'm going to show some interesting drawings that I think may reveal the code compliance, assuming the plans are correct. The fire separation in Green, represents a 1 hour rated wall. I note this terminates at the exterior wall.

Fire separation between suites, with shared balcony
Close up of shared balcony
isometric
It appears that the openings between suite 1 and 2 are ~ 4 feet apart. (Not that this indicates the code requirement).


----------



## tmurray (Sep 24, 2020)

There is no minimum distance requirement here. See 3.2.3.14 in both the NBC and the OBC. Anything at an angle of more than 135 degrees (you are at 180) is unregulated by the code.

As far as the fire separation continuing onto the the balcony, exterior platforms are a dicey thing in the Canadian codes. they are regulated by it, but they are not part of the building (see definition of building). So, I don't think a building official could really find any justification that this is required. 

Separations are required between suites, which is defined as a room or series of rooms. A balcony is definitely not a room. So, the balcony is not part of the suite and would not require separation from anything, unless requirements related to spatial separation kick in.


----------



## cda (Sep 24, 2020)

tmurray said:


> There is no minimum distance requirement here. See 3.2.3.14 in both the NBC and the OBC. Anything at an angle of more than 135 degrees (you are at 180) is unregulated by the code.
> 
> As far as the fire separation continuing onto the the balcony, exterior platforms are a dicey thing in the Canadian codes. they are regulated by it, but they are not part of the building (see definition of building). So, I don't think a building official could really find any justification that this is required.
> 
> Separations are required between suites, which is defined as a room or series of rooms. A balcony is definitely not a room. So, the balcony is not part of the suite and would not require separation from anything, unless requirements related to spatial separation kick in.





*Common sense prevails,*

Just need to apply the common sense section 103.3.3.3.3. Are You Crazy?


----------



## Buildrightson (Sep 24, 2020)

thanks tmurray,

I know you're from Canada... and you mention the Canadian codes being "dicey" regarding this. However, do you say this because there is any more clarification within IBC?





tmurray said:


> As far as the fire separation continuing onto the the balcony, exterior platforms are a dicey thing in the Canadian codes. they are regulated by it, but they are not part of the building (see definition of building). So, I don't think a building official could really find any justification that this is required.
> 
> Separations are required between suites, which is defined as a room or series of rooms. A balcony is definitely not a room. So, the balcony is not part of the suite and would not require separation from anything, unless requirements related to spatial separation kick in.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 25, 2020)

Buildrightson said:


> thanks tmurray,
> 
> I know you're from Canada... and you mention the Canadian codes being "dicey" regarding this. However, do you say this because there is any more clarification within IBC?


The only reason I say this is that decks and other outdoor air platforms are not part of the building, so they would not typically be regulated by the building code. However, there is some verbiage in the notes section (appendix) of the code that while they are not buildings, they do support an occupancy and are to be regulated by the code. References to these structures throughout the code are typically specific to these structures, such as spatial separation and structural requirements in Part 9.

I'm by no means an expert on IBC, the rest of the folks here can chime in on this, but would imagine it would be similar in this regard.


----------



## Buildrightson (Sep 25, 2020)

Thanks tmurray,

I often see what appears to be an attempt to horizontally separate exterior openings, where there is a balcony, for instance.

Would it be plausible, that some measure of protection may be a request of:

AHJ making a comment that they require a separation, or level of protection (even though they can't reference a specific section of the code)
architect/fire/code consultant recommending a best practice or "common sense" approach
thereby, providing a variation in the level of fire protection.

I think I'll leave it at that.
*Thanks for all of your input!*



tmurray said:


> The only reason I say this is that decks and other outdoor air platforms are not part of the building, so they would not typically be regulated by the building code. However, there is some verbiage in the notes section (appendix) of the code that while they are not buildings, they do support an occupancy and are to be regulated by the code. References to these structures throughout the code are typically specific to these structures, such as spatial separation and structural requirements in Part 9.
> 
> I'm by no means an expert on IBC, the rest of the folks here can chime in on this, but would imagine it would be similar in this regard.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 28, 2020)

Buildrightson said:


> Thanks tmurray,
> 
> I often see what appears to be an attempt to horizontally separate exterior openings, where there is a balcony, for instance.
> 
> ...


It would be more plausible that the consultant to include it in their design as a best practice. As an AHJ, if I require something that is not supported by the code or by-laws, I would be violating the premise of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Laws and requirements must be instituted by elected officials. This provides an avenue for society to affect the applicable requirements and ensure that they serve the needs of society. An AHJ who unilaterally creates and enforces requirements is subverting the system.

This is not to say that an AHJ cannot make a recommendation on a best practice, but it must be carefully worded so that the developer or consultant is aware both that it is only a recommendation and that should they decide against undertaking the recommendation, that there will be no punitive impact.


----------

