Definition of a "Building"

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ryan Propst

Member
A new cafeteria is being built onto an existing school. The cafeteria addition is separated from the existing school by 2-hour rated fire walls. Is the cafeteria considered a new building or is it part of the existing school building?

There is a storage room and electrical closet within the new cafeteria addition. The storage/electrical room is separated from the cafeteria by 1-hour rated fire walls. Is the storage room itself defined as another building?

According to the 2008 NEC, a building is "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."

According to the 2006 IBC, a fire wall is "A fire-resistance-rated wall having protected openings, which restricts the spread of fire and extends continuously from the foundation to or through the roof, with sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall."
 
I would say that it is a separte structure with the firewall but I would definitely Check with the building department in your area for their call on the situation.
 
I Would guess that this is the schools cafeteria and if so it most likely would be defined as a place of assembly and the fire separation is most likely for that reason.
I would think the same is true for the service closet the fire separation was not intended to separate this area in the sense of defining them as separate buildings rather separate fire areas within the same building.
But as already stated check with your building code official Have them define for you what these areas are then apply NEC rules I in accordance with there definition.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Fire wall alone does not make it a separate building.It would be required but other factors are involved.
Click to expand...

Good point. An attached garage in most houses could be considered a separate building if it was a stand alone rule. :smile:
 
George Stolz said:
Ryan, welcome to the forum. I have an odd question for you: What does the answer of this question lead to for you? Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
If it's considered a new building, then it has its own service point so the neutral has to be re-grounded and the main switchboard can't have more than six disconnects. I assume there are more repercussions but I haven't learned them yet.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Fire wall alone does not make it a seperate building.It would be required but other factors are involved.
Click to expand...
How can you say that when the code says what it says? The only thing I see that's questionable is that the fire wall must have "sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall."
 
I'd say if firewalls separate the old and new portions of the school, then the new portion could be considered a seperate building in applying Article 230. I'd check to see that the AHJ agrees before proceeding.
 
Ryan Propst said:
A new cafeteria is being built onto an existing school. The cafeteria addition is separated from the existing school by 2-hour rated fire walls. Is the cafeteria considered a new building or is it part of the existing school building? ..............
Click to expand...

As has been suggested, check your local building code. Typically, it will read something like this: "Assembly areas that are accessory to Group E are not considered separate occupancies." It may also read like this: "Assembly occupancies which are accessory to Group E in accordance with Section _____(302.2 or something else in your local code) are not considered assembly occupancies."

Allowable areas for Educational buildings are typically regulated by Table 503 in the Building Code, although yours may differ. If the school is constructed as a Type 1, then allowable area will be unlimited; Type 2/A, maximum height 3 stories and maximum fire area 26,500 square feet per floor......etc., etc.
Sounds to me like you have an "addition" to a building, not a "separate" building, but it will be entirely dependant on the code in effect.

The electrical room will be an accessory space more than likely. :smile:
 
Just to add to Fred's post...

Ryan Propst said:
If it's considered a new building, then it has its own service point so the neutral has to be re-grounded and the main switchboard can't have more than six disconnects. I assume there are more repercussions but I haven't learned them yet.
Click to expand...

Even if it were considered one building, you could have more than one service supplying it if you met the terms of 230.2(B), (C), or (D).
 
wbalsam1 said:
Sounds to me like you have an "addition" to a building, not a "separate" building, but it will be entirely dependant on the code in effect.

The electrical room will be an accessory space more than likely. :smile:
Click to expand...
The architect told me it was an "addition." But that doesn't make sense: it's in direct contradiction to code. And I understand you're belittling my question on the electrical room but, again, according to code (and assuming the 1-hour rated fire wall surrounding the room is structurally sound), the electrical room is classified as another building. Egress corridors are also fireproofed; common sense says they aren't separate buildings but why isn't the NEC definition more specific? The IBC isn't anymore help.

And if it were necessary to consult the AHJ on every project, how would it be possible to meet any deadline? Besides, I thought these localities adopted the national standards anyways although it seems they usually lag a few years as, I guess, it takes time to review the latest editions.
 
Ryan, you have to understand that the IBC has 3 distinct different fire-rated walls. You have a fire barrier, fire partition and fire wall. A true fire wall as defined by the IBC can't be rated less than 2 hr so a 1 hr rated wall would be either a fire partition or a fire barrier.

Only a true fire wall can be used to create 2 separate buildings. So just because a wall has a fire rating does not make the wall a true fire wall as specified in the IBC.

Hope this helps.

Chris
 
Ryan Propst said:
The architect told me it was an "addition." But that doesn't make sense: it's in direct contradiction to code. And I understand you're belittling my question on the electrical room but, again, according to code (and assuming the 1-hour rated fire wall surrounding the room is structurally sound), the electrical room is classified as another building.
Click to expand...

I absolutely fail to see where I was belittling your question. Did you not notice the smiley face after my comments? If I were prone to belittling, I probably would have used a :rolleyes: .

I am only trying to make the point that an electrical room is an accessory space, in the sense that the entire building is not an electrical room, it's a cafeteria addition to a school. I agree whole-heartedly that more clarity in the definitions of "building" and "structure" are in order.

I"ve never met anyone who thought it logical or rational to think that a space set aside for electrical equipment within a building was a separate building. (I'm not accusing you of this way of thinking, either). Fire separations a separate building do not make.
 
Ryan Propst said:
The architect told me it was an "addition." But that doesn't make sense: it's in direct contradiction to code. And I understand you're belittling my question on the electrical room but, again, according to code (and assuming the 1-hour rated fire wall surrounding the room is structurally sound), the electrical room is classified as another building. Egress corridors are also fireproofed; common sense says they aren't separate buildings but why isn't the NEC definition more specific? The IBC isn't anymore help.

And if it were necessary to consult the AHJ on every project, how would it be possible to meet any deadline? Besides, I thought these localities adopted the national standards anyways although it seems they usually lag a few years as, I guess, it takes time to review the latest editions.
Click to expand...
does the "addition" have it's own separate means of egress? If it has a separate means of egress, and a fire wall separating the old building from the new, then yes, the "addition" would be a new structure, as it is full capable of carrying itself should the old building be torn down/burnt/imploded/dismantled. Many times, fire walls are used to separate the same occupancy classification to aloow for a greater square footage.
 
DanZ said:
does the "addition" have it's own separate means of egress? If it has a separate means of egress, and a fire wall separating the old building from the new, then yes, the "addition" would be a new structure, as it is full capable of carrying itself should the old building be torn down/burnt/imploded/dismantled. Many times, fire walls are used to separate the same occupancy classification to aloow for a greater square footage.
Click to expand...

I would not agree that it is a seperate building simply because it has it's own means of egress. Many divided buildings are one building and each seperate area has it's own means of egress, but you still only have one service.

I do agree that there are several reasons why the building is being seperated. It could be to large and require the seperation to avoid being sprinklered, or it could really be an area seperation wall, seperating an A from and E. Well now that I've said that, I just checked and there is no seperation required between an A and an E in the new code, in the old code one hour was required.

Or as sometimes happens the arc. could be drawing something that is not really required.
 
raider1 said:
Ryan, you have to understand that the IBC has 3 distinct different fire-rated walls. You have a fire barrier, fire partition and fire wall. A true fire wall as defined by the IBC can't be rated less than 2 hr so a 1 hr rated wall would be either a fire partition or a fire barrier.

Only a true fire wall can be used to create 2 separate buildings. So just because a wall has a fire rating does not make the wall a true fire wall as specified in the IBC.
Click to expand...
Yes, that helps a lot. Thank you.

DanZ said:
does the "addition" have it's own separate means of egress?
Click to expand...
Yes, the addition has its own egress.
 
Ryan Propst said:
And if it were necessary to consult the AHJ on every project, how would it be possible to meet any deadline?
Click to expand...

It's your risk - if there's an interpretation issue (i.e. 230.2(B)(2)) that could be called either way you can gamble and make the decision yourself (and have a better than 50% chance of not being overruled in the plan review or inspection phases) or call the local AHJ and ask.

A phone call while you're designing could take less than five minutes. A correction from the plan reviewer could take a day to redraw the one-lines. A correction from the inspector rejecting the installed new service could eat up a week of discussion between the electrical contractor, inspector, plan reviewer, and AHJ.

I don't regret offering the advice that you call the AHJ, but that's just my opinion, and I give it for free. I am just a journeyman electrician working in the field, scratching my head on a daily basis as to why something got drawn the way it did, and if I should bother questioning it. :)
 
George Stolz said:
I don't regret offering the advice that you call the AHJ, but that's just my opinion, and I give it for free. I am just a journeyman electrician working in the field, scratching my head on a daily basis as to why something got drawn the way it did, and if I should bother questioning it. :)
Click to expand...
I whole heatedly agree with George's statement. It's a heck of a lot easier to make a quick call before work starts, than it is to tear it out, and rebuild it. Typically, people don't like paying for work twice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top