Forum ProfileBack
Advanced

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Lost password?
sp_TopicIcon
IBC Tables 705.8 & 602: Exterior FRR with Unlimited Openings
March 18, 2020
11:54 am
Avatar
scollier@cityofcody.com
New Member
Guests

Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
May 6, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

In my opinion all of the above will apply and unlimited unprotected openings are allowed. The allowance of the unlimited unprotected openings is due to the fact that with the levels of protection being provided (all listed I-B non combustible protected materials used Table 601, exterior wall fire ratings met Table 602 and full suppression provided) we are limiting or removing fire risk to the occupants, fire risk to adjacent properties and limiting structural failure.

 

I hope that makes sense and helps! Any correction on this is line of thought is welcome!

Sean Collier

March 17, 2020
8:57 pm
Avatar
apschieber@incandescencels.com
New Member
Guests

Members
Forum Posts: 1
Member Since:
March 17, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Running into an issue making sense of seemingly contradictory requirements between Tables 705.8 and 602 in the 2018 IBC.  

I am reviewing a fully sprinklered Type I-B building that has a fire separation distance along one face that is about 21 feet.  Per IBC Table 602 the exterior wall is required to have a 1-hour exterior wall; however, Table 705.8 permits unlimited unprotected openings for a sprinklered building with a fire separation distance of at least 20 feet.  

If the exterior wall is permitted to have an unlimited area of unprotected openings, why would the wall be required to have a fire resistance rating?  I am familiar with the Exception 2 to IBC 705.8.1 which indicates that the allowable area of openings is unlimited when a wall is not required to be rated; however, there doesn’t seem to be a similar provision that addresses this situation.

Has anyone run into this issue, or aware of a section or commentary passage that I am missing?

 

Thanks!