fire rated door for a demising wall

[ceb58]

Where does the OP state that the doors were installed after the building inspection.
"The building inspector approved the work 2 years ago, but sent us a letter that the electrical inspector told him that it is not correct due the NEC 2011 230.2 and 230.72."

If the demising wall was new then, how does 230 come into play as a violation when it was first built? What some are saying that building a demising wall this would allow a second service.

Something else is going on here and it appears it is a 2 year old issue.

We installed a man door and a garage door into that demising wall.

The building inspector approved the work 2 years ago,

Looks as this is what happened. The existing fire wall, by building code, made the structure 2 separate buildings. Thus allowing the 2 separate services.
Building inspector approved the doors to be cut in.
Some one did not know or missed the codes about fire rated doors in a fire rated wall.
Electrical inspector has now caught the violation.
Install the fire doors and you are back to 2 separate structures.

I did a large addition to a fire department last year. The new addition was joined to the old with a 2 hr rated wall. It went across 90 ft to another 2 hr rated wall that now separated the new truck bay from what will be sleeping quarters. For practicality I installed a second service on the new part of the building that was separated by the second fire wall. But before any of this was done I ran every thing by the inspector (combo). His ruling was what I wanted to do was fine. He went further to say that by building code I could have 3 separate services because of the 2 fire walls. The existing service, a service for the truck bay and a service for the sleeping quarters. The only thing he stressed was that I follow 230.2 (E). He said in case the fire department caught fire he wanted the fire department to know where the services were. :happyyes:

 

[david]

How do you cut a garage door and a man door into a wall and consider them two separate structures? It is not just the fire rating it is also the size of the openings.

It sounds like the building inspector for the building approved a permit to allow the two separate buildings to become one by cutting these openings.

As far as I know there is no way to fix this short of closing the openings.

It seems the building department is working on approving compromise and if that is the case why cant the compromise be to allow the two service locations and add signage to ensure both locations are clearly identified.

 

[Sierrasparky]

How do you cut a garage door and a man door into a wall and consider them two separate structures? It is not just the fire rating it is also the size of the openings.

It sounds like the building inspector for the building approved a permit to allow the two separate buildings to become one by cutting these openings.

As far as I know there is no way to fix this short of closing the openings.

It seems the building department is working on approving compromise and if that is the case why cant the compromise be to allow the two service locations and add signage to ensure both locations are clearly identified.

That seems like the logical. But obviously not.
The opening presents a fire safety issue the 2 services do not if marked. Remember the 2 services were there and there is no greater hazard.

 

[david]

That seems like the logical. But obviously not.
The opening presents a fire safety issue the 2 services do not if marked. Remember the 2 services were there and there is no greater hazard.

Does adding the fire rating to the doors lesson the hazard since the garage door most likely would only be closed at lock down when the employees go home for the evening? Isn?t that in part why the size of the openings has to be factor into the separation as well as the fire rating of the doors?

There doesn?t seem to be a discussion in the building department about the standard doors, creating any fire hazard the discussion seems to hinge on the electrical code and whether there is an allowance for two services. If the violation is based on the electrical code the solution should also be a provision based on the same code.

ether way it's a compromise I'm just not sure going in the direction of fire doors makes any difference.

 

[iwire]

I think the electrical inspector is trying to do them a favor. He found a 230.2 violation. He is willing to consider the spaces as separate buildings as long as there is a fire rating maintained. Replacing a couple of doors is probably a lot cheaper than redoing the service.

That was my take on this thread as well.

 

[iwire]

Adding a fire rated door does not change the rules for 230.
One more wrong does not make a right.
The more serious issue is does the wall need to maintain a fire rating.
Multiple services are allowed.

Changing a non-rated door for a rated fire door can alleviate the violation of 230 they now have.

 

[david]

If the wall was to maintain fire separation that is most likely correct, but if the separation is to be considered a true fire wall that?s a much higher thresh hold to reach. It has to be an actual fire wall not just fire separation to achieve the desired outcome the electrical inspector is trying get to.

I agree with the idea that this needs to go back to the building inspector and find out if the 2 hour doors will make this a fire wall.

edit-or at least find out if the building inspector and the electrical inspector agree on this solution

 

[david]

I guess what I am saying is there is no indication in this thread that the electrical inspector talked to the building inspector when he decided that the fire doors will maintain the two building concept he is basing his decision on.

Both inspectors seem to be well versed in their respective principles. The building inspector did not see the violation in article 230 when he made the decision to approve the doors.
Now you have an electrical inspector coming up with a solution based on his understanding of the building code witch seems to be outside of his respective principle. What if after this repair is made the building inspector informs the electrical inspector, the solution does not achieve what the electrical inspector thought it would.

Usually when a building department has inspectors with their specific principles there is a building code official, you may just want to run with the electrical inspectors solution, but before I did I want some insurance that this will allow this space to occupied for its intended use and end the conflict between the two officials understanding of what is compliant.

 

[safetyJoe]

may have it figured out

may have it figured out

Was able to get a quote for a 3 hour rated fire door. Once the quote was received I emailed it to the EI. He told me to contact the BI and make sure he is ok with it as well, so as to all of your concerns, it looks like they are both working in tandem so at the very least we are not going to do a 7-8 thousand dollar fix for one inspector just to find out the other is not ok with it. This has been a big learning project for me as a new safety manager, thanks to all for your thoughtful posts and comments.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Not able to answer the questions as I would probably have to see the install, but I make calls on rated walls all the time. It is my responsibility to make these calls if the electrician is the one cutting or making the holes in them. It is also my responsibility to give a heads up to the building inspector if I see such violations.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Not able to answer the questions as I would probably have to see the install, but I make calls on rated walls all the time. It is my responsibility to make these calls if the electrician is the one cutting or making the holes in them. It is also my responsibility to give a heads up to the building inspector if I see such violations.

I respect that you need to make calls as to fire rated walls. You don't want to have some sparky making holes where is not supposed to. In this case we still don't know all the facts. I would hate to be in the position of citing a violation that was planned and approved and signed off several years earlier like what appears here.

I still don't see the connection of article 230 and more than one service. The fire door should not be the issue creating a violation with 230. As I said before. If the fire door is for safety of fire spread or smoke then it has nothing to do with 230. The fire door does nothing to alert the fire dept. that there are 2 services.
I think I or we are missing something.

Maybe the OP does not want to tell us because it will further upset things.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I respect that you need to make calls as to fire rated walls. You don't want to have some sparky making holes where is not supposed to. In this case we still don't know all the facts. I would hate to be in the position of citing a violation that was planned and approved and signed off several years earlier like what appears here.

I still don't see the connection of article 230 and more than one service. The fire door should not be the issue creating a violation with 230. As I said before. If the fire door is for safety of fire spread or smoke then it has nothing to do with 230. The fire door does nothing to alert the fire dept. that there are 2 services.
I think I or we are missing something.

Maybe the OP does not want to tell us because it will further upset things.

And that is why I prefaced my comment with "I would need to see the install. And I would agree that if it has been signed off for years that it's not really a good time to bring it up, but just because someone made a mistake doesn't mean that it should stay a mistake.

 

[iwire]

I still don't see the connection of article 230 and more than one service. The fire door should not be the issue creating a violation with 230.

230 allows one service per building for most applications.

It seems the EI feels this used to be two buildings until the non-rated hole was cut between them. Now it is one building with two services.

It seems the EI is giving them a break by asking for a fire rated door instead of eliminating a service.

 

[Sierrasparky]

230 allows one service per building for most applications.

It seems the EI feels this used to be two buildings until the non-rated hole was cut between them. Now it is one building with two services.

It seems the EI is giving them a break by asking for a fire rated door instead of eliminating a service.

I don"t see how this was ever 2 buildings as the OP has stated. One building with a demising wall does not make two buildings. Furthermore the AHJ and the POCO can allow 2 services by exception.

Maybe this was the exception that allowed 2 services as a condition. Then the owner pulled a fast one. I have seen this all the time in the city. Ask for an exception for one reason knowing the real reason will not get you what you want. Then after the fact do what you want.

 

[mgookin]

I don"t see how this was ever 2 buildings as the OP has stated. One building with a demising wall does not make two buildings. Furthermore the AHJ and the POCO can allow 2 services by exception.

Maybe this was the exception that allowed 2 services as a condition. Then the owner pulled a fast one. I have seen this all the time in the city. Ask for an exception for one reason knowing the real reason will not get you what you want. Then after the fact do what you want.

I think it was 2 tenant spaces before but not positive on that.

 

[sandsnow]

Seems the inspector is basing violation on this definition in Article 100. Then over to Article 230.

Building.A structure that stands alone or that is cut off
from adjoining structures by fire walls with all openings
therein protected by approved fire doors.

This is same definiotion we have had for decades. Pretty poor. What is hourly rating of wall? Does wall go through roof or end at bottom of roof? Are fire doors fully rated or or less as allowed in the building code?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Seems the inspector is basing violation on this definition in Article 100. Then over to Article 230.

Building.A structure that stands alone or that is cut off
from adjoining structures by fire walls with all openings
therein protected by approved fire doors.

This is same definiotion we have had for decades. Pretty poor. What is hourly rating of wall? Does wall go through roof or end at bottom of roof? Are fire doors fully rated or or less as allowed in the building code?

Now your talking. :thumbsup:

 

[mgookin]

Seems the inspector is basing violation on this definition in Article 100. Then over to Article 230.

Building.A structure that stands alone or that is cut off
from adjoining structures by fire walls with all openings
therein protected by approved fire doors.

This is same definiotion we have had for decades. Pretty poor. What is hourly rating of wall? Does wall go through roof or end at bottom of roof? Are fire doors fully rated or or less as allowed in the building code?

It used to be that a firewall was 4 hour rated and structurally designed to allow collapse on one side without compromising the integrity on the other side. Openings (doors) had to be 3 hour rated. And if you have fire rated treated roof deck for 40' each side of the wall, it does not need to extend above the roof.

But now we have firewalls of varying hourly ratings depending on what's on what side (occupancy classifications, construction types, etc.)

Fire Walls are a building code chapter 5 issue (height and area of building based on occupancy classification and construction type).

But for tenant separation fire rated walls, those have always been called fire rated partitions (not fire walls). They're opening protection is almost always less than the rating of the wall. Theory is that we don't stack combustables (or anything) against doors.

Fire Rated Partitions are a building code chapter 3 issue (occupancy classification) and a chapter 10 issue (means of egress).

 

[david]

That?s why the building inspector and the electrical inspector need to come together in this decision.

They seem to be though not directly, The electrical inspector told him to contact the building inspector, I am a bit curious why the electrical inspector and building inspector are not talking directly to each other.

It may be that this is not a building department, maybe this area has a building inspector and an electrical inspector that work independent of each other.

 

[augie47]

That?s why the building inspector and the electrical inspector need to come together in this decision.

They seem to be though not directly, The electrical inspector told him to contact the building inspector, I am a bit curious why the electrical inspector and building inspector are not talking directly to each other.

It may be that this is not a building department, maybe this area has a building inspector and an electrical inspector that work independent of each other.

As an electrical inspector I have encountered the same situation relatively often.
Sometimes the building inspectors get involved in the structural design and overlook the electrical issues. Likewise, as Mcgookin pointed out, there are many
variations involved in fire rated walls and I would refer the owner to the building
inspector rather than try to pass along any third party info. I have little doubt the two inspectors have and will converse.
Interpretations of 230.2 vary due to the "by special permission" clause. I am curious as to the size of the two services and the distance between them. Both factors would have a bearing locally on two services being allowed