Through Floor Penetrations of Non-Rated Floor/Ceiling Slabs
A commonly asked question is whether or not penetrations of floor slabs, floor/ceiling assemblies, and roof/ceiling assemblies that are otherwise not required to be fire resistance rated, require protection by an approved through-penetration firestop system to maintain the integrity of the floor slab. In accordance with 780 CMR 714.5, the protection of such penetrations is dependent on the type of penetrant and the number of stories penetrated as outlined below:
1. All combustible penetrating items connecting more than two-stories and all noncombustible penetrating items connecting more than five-stories are required to be protected within a shaft in accordance with 780 CMR 713.
2. For all penetrating items connecting not more than two stories, the annular space of the penetrating item is required to be fireblocked in accordance with 780 CMR 718.2.5 to resist the free passage of flame and products of combustion (780 CMR 714.5.2). Such materials include batts or blankets of mineral wool or mineral fiber installed such as to be securely retained in place or cellulose insulation installed as tested for the specific application without requiring the application to be a listed firestopping assembly (780 CMR 718.2.1).
3. For all noncombustible penetrating items connecting not more than five-stories, the annular space of the penetrating item is required to be fireblocked in accordance with 780 CMR 718.2.5 to resist the free passage of flame and products of combustion or be filled with a fill, void, or cavity material that is tested and classified for use in a through-penetration firestop system (780 CMR 714.5.1). As such, these penetrations may either be protected as outlined by Item 2 above or the annular space may be filled with a listed product such as intumescent firestopping without requiring the application to be a listed firestopping assembly.
Continue to monitor the Code Red Consultants Blog for code updates and search “Firestop” for more information on firestopping assemblies are when Third Party Firestopping Special Inspections are required.
The 9th Edition of 780 CMR requires existing buildings to comply with the Flood Load requirements of Section 1612 if the building is undergoing substantial improvements, is being restored due to substantial damage, or is undergoing a substantial repair of a foundation. Section 1612.1 reads as follows:
1612.1 General. Within flood hazard areas as established in section 1612.3, all new construction of buildings, structures and portions of buildings and structures, including substantial improvement and restoration of substantial damage to buildings and structures, and substantial repair of a foundation shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of flood hazards and flood loads. For buildings that are located in more than one flood hazard area, the provisions associated with the most restrictive flood hazard area shall apply.
Substantial improvement, substantial damage, and substantial repair of a foundation are defined in Chapter 2 of 780 CMR and by Federal Regulations. Substantial improvement is work that equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the building before the improvement is started. Substantial damage is damage of any origin that requires restoration to the building to its before-damaged condition that would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the building before the damage occurred. Substantial repair of a foundation includes work to repair or replace 50% or more of the perimeter along the base of the foundation measured in linear feet, or repair or replacement of 50% or more of the piles, columns or piers of a pile, or column or pier supported foundation.
If compliance is required, the existing building must comply with 780 CMR and the 2014 Edition of ASCE 24. Note that the 9th Edition of 780 CMR amends the definition of Design Flood Elevation to be the same as Base Flood Elevation.
This past June we posted a blog on the significant changes to the 9th Edition of 780 CMR which is based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC). One of these posts included a requirement for a firestopping special inspections within high-rise or risk category III or IV buildings. A link to this blog post can be found here.
Since the posting of this blog, there have questions as to how these requirements would apply to existing buildings. The answer to this question is regulated by the requirements 780 CMR 34.00, Existing Building Code of Massachusetts, which references the 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC). There is a fundamental requirement of 780 CMR 34 that requires both additions and alterations to existing buildings to comply with the requirements of 780 CMR for new construction. As such, an addition or renovation project in high-rise or risk category III or IV buildings that includes firestopping as part of the project work will require firestopping special inspections in accordance with 780 CMR 1705.17. The special inspections would be limited only to newly installed firestop systems. Existing-to-remain firestop systems would not fall within the scope of the firestop special inspections.
If you are in need of help on firestopping inspections in either a new or existing building, please do not hesitate to give us a call.
It’s become a relatively common place occurrence for designers to utilize sprinklers on glass windows in place of a fire rated wall that is required by the International Building Code or 780 CMR, the Massachusetts State Building Code. Under the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), which is adopted as the basis of 780 CMR 9th Edition, the compliance path to utilize sprinklers on glass in place of a fire-resistance rated wall has changed and may be more challenging than it was in the past to get them approved.
Section 703.4 of the 2015 IBC states that automatic sprinklers are not permitted to be utilized when determining the fire resistance of a wall assembly in accordance with the ASTM E119 or UL 263 fire test standards. The section continues to clarify that while it is not permitted by Ch. 7 of the IBC, such wall assemblies may be approved under Section 104.10 and 104.11 as an alternative method where approved by the building official. The Tyco WS Window Sprinkler is a common product designers utilize on a glass wall in place of a traditional fire rated wall. This product does have test data illustrating that it was tested in accordance with the ASTM E119 test and achieved a 2-hour rating with heat-strengthened or tempered glass although specific design limitations apply. It is critical to provide the necessary product data to the building official for their review and approval. The change to Chapter 7 of the IBC does not explicitly prohibit use of this product or similar ones, but puts the path to approval through Chapter 1, where evaluation and the documented approval of the approach is at the discretion of the approving authority.
It’s worthy to note that this requirement does not apply to atrium boundaries, as there is a separate exception specifically for atrium walls that allows the use of a glass wall with sprinklers spaced 6-feet on center that are designed to wet the entire surface of the glass in accordance with Section 404.6 of the IBC. This exception is not subject to the requirements of the language in Ch.7 because it is located within the special use and occupancy section of the code and exists for atriums because of the other protection features required to be provided, such as smoke control systems. This exception cannot be utilized for walls located outside of an atrium.
Do not hesitate to give us a call if you need help evaluating if you can utilize a glass wall assembly with sprinklers on your project.
The 9th Edition of 780 CMR, Massachusetts State Building Code, based on the 2015 IBC, includes several code changes relative to means of egress through elevator lobbies. Under previous editions of the code, egressing through intervening spaces were typically restricted to adjoining rooms or areas that were accessory to one another, were not a Group H occupancy, and provided a discernable path of egress to an exit. For example, a conference room would be permitted to egress through an open office area to reach the required exit access corridor. Means of egress through elevator lobbies was not directly addressed.
The 9th Edition of 780 CMR Section 1016.2(1) now includes language specifically permitting occupants to pass through enclosed elevator lobbies along their means of exit access. Additionally, fire-resistance rated corridors (most commonly seen in Residential Occupancies) are traditionally required to be continuous from the point of entry to an exit and, in most cases, may not be interrupted by intervening rooms. The 9th Edition has added Exception 2 to Section 1020.6 which now allows enclosed elevator lobbies to intervene fire rated corridors without being construed as an intervening room. Note that the fire rating of the corridor, including openings protective requirements, must still be maintained through the elevator lobby.
In addition, the 2015 IBC includes language in Section 1016.2(1) that addresses means of egress through an enclosed elevator lobby. The code prohibits the only means of egress from a room or space to be through an enclosed elevator lobby required by Section 3006. Where access to two means of egress is required, at least one path cannot be through the lobby. Perhaps the most apparent design impact is on residential buildings with a central elevator/stair core where it is commonplace to have rooms adjacent to the elevator shafts (see image at left). This arrangement is not permitted under the 9th Edition as the rooms have their sole means of egress path through the elevator lobby.
What is NFPA 285?
NFPA 285 is a standard test method published by the National Fire Protection Association for evaluating the fire propagation characteristics of exterior non-load bearing wall assemblies with combustible components. The test method was established recognizing that such walls contain combustible components and evaluates how readily and quickly the exterior wall promotes fire spread.
As part of the 9th Edition of 780 CMR, MA State Building Code, the 2012 Edition of NFPA 285 is adopted.
Note that NFPA 285 is an assembly test, and not a component test. This means that the entire exterior wall assembly must be evaluated for compliance, not single materials or components located within an assembly.
When is compliance with NFPA 285 required?
Compliance with the requirements of NFPA 285 is required for an exterior wall assembly under the following conditions. Note that MA amends several of these sections, so using the MA Amendments in conjunction with the base IBC is necessary for projects located within the Commonwealth.
- Air/Vapor Barriers – Exterior walls in buildings with Type I, II, III, or IV construction more than 40 feet in height that contain a combustible water-resistive barrier are required to comply with NFPA 285. Exceptions to this requirement:
- Walls in which the water-resistive barrier is the only combustible component, and the exterior wall has a covering of brick, concrete, stone, terra cotta, stucco, or steel per 780 CMR Table 1405.2; or
- Walls in which the water-resistive barrier is the only combustible component and the water-resistive barrier meets certain material properties including peak heat release rate, total heat release, flame spread index and smoke-developed index.
- MCM Panels – Metal Composite Materials (MCM) in exterior walls in buildings with Type I, II, III, or IV construction are required to comply with NFPA 285. Various exceptions are provided, including:
- Installations up to 40 feet in height, where the fire-separation distance exceeds 5 feet, or the area of MCM is less than 10% of the wall surface;
- Installations up to 50 feet in height, where the MCM has a limited self-ignition temperature, and is limited in the total installed area; or
- Installations up to 75 feet in height (or beyond if fully sprinkler protected) based on the building occupancy, fire separation distance, area limitation of MCM, and material properties (i.e. self-ignition temperature) of the MCM.
- HPLs – High-Pressure Laminates (HPL) in exterior walls in buildings with Type I, II, III, or IV construction are required to comply with NPFA 285. Various exceptions are provided, including:
- Installations up to 40 feet in height, where the fire-separation distance exceeds 5 feet, or the area of MCM is less than 10% Of the wall surface; or
- Installations up to 50 feet in height, where the MCM has a limited self-ignition temperature, and is limited in the total installed area
- Mechanical Equipment Screens – Compliance with NFPA 285 is an option for compliance for combustible mechanical equipment screens
- Foam Plastic Insulation – Foam plastic insulation in exterior walls in buildings with Type I, II, III, or IV construction are required to comply with NFPA 285. Exceptions include:
- Special approval based on large-scale tests such as NFPA 286, FM 4880, UL 1040, or UL 1715.
- Wall assemblies where the insulation is covered on each face by 1-inch thick masonry, concrete, terracotta, stucco, or 0.5-inch thick Type X gypsum board. In most cases, there must be no airspace between the insulation and the exterior wall covering;
- Low-rise buildings that are sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13 where a fire flow analysis has been performed without sprinkler decrease allowance that shows adequate water is available.
Questions on NFPA 285 scoping language and options for compliance? Feel free to reach out to us to find out more.
The recent adoption of the 9th edition of Massachusetts Building Code, which is an amended version of the 2015 IBC, brings with it the addition and clarification of a commonly used construction practice regarding membrane penetrations in horizontal assemblies. The recently adopted code includes a new exception to Section 714.4.2 which states that the “ceiling membrane of both 1- and 2-hour fire-resistance-rated horizontal assemblies is permitted to be interrupted with the double wood top plate of a wall assembly that is sheathed with Type X gypsum wallboard”, provided that penetrations are adequately sealed and the ceiling membrane is tight to the top plates.
This assembly is a common occurrence in construction, but the design was not previously addressed in the code. In conventional framing, membrane penetrations are created where the top wall plates intersect the floor joists. This is now clarified and permitted in the code, but specifies that the wall is required to have two wood top plates and sheathed with Type X gypsum board. The assembly specified in the code is shown at left.
[Image from: Significant Changes to the International Building Code, 2015 Edition (ICC)]
Clarification of Gender Neutral Toilets: MA Plumbing Code
As part of the new Massachusetts Plumbing Code amendments issued in January 2017, “gender neutral” toilet rooms have replaced “unisex” toilet rooms.
Where 248 CMR 10.00 requires 2 or more toilet fixtures designated by gender, the use of gender neutral toilet rooms is permitted under one of two conditions (248 CMR 10.10(18)(r)):
(1) All gender designated toilet fixtures are replaced with an equal number of single use gender neutral toilets (such that there are no gender designated fixtures); or
(2) Where 4 or more toilet fixtures are required for males and females combined per 248 CMR, gender neutral toilets are permitted to replace required gender-designated fixtures in increments of two.
Figure 1 shows an example of how to apply these conditions where 248 CMR 10.00 requires 10 female toilets and 8 male toilets. The third approach shown in Figure 1 is not compliant as the gender neutral toilet room is required to satisfy minimum fixture counts, however is not provided in increments of two as required.
Figure 2 illustrates that a single gender neutral toilet room is permitted to be used for accessibility or other purposes provided that it is in addition to (i.e. not code required) the number of required gender-designated toilet fixtures.
Have additional questions? Give us a call to discuss the application on your project.
When is a permanent approved means of access required for mechanical equipment and appliances installed on roofs or elevated structures?
In accordance with Section 306.5 of the International Mechanical Code (IMC), access must be provided to the roof by permanent means (access hatch or permanent ladder) if the roof is greater than 16 feet above grade. The 16 foot measurement is from grade to the roof level and not to the height of the RTU from grade as shown in the following excerpt from the IMC Code and Commentary. In the case of mechanical equipment and appliances installed on a penthouse roof, the 16 foot measurement is from the building’s roof level to the penthouse roof level. As such, the technician may be required to bring equipment to the roof to provide access to all portions of the mechanical equipment and appliances in order to perform service.
It should be noted that such access may not require climbing over obstructions greater than 30-inches high or walking on roofs having a slope greater than four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33-percent slope). Additionally, where access involves climbing over parapet walls, the height shall be measured to the top of the parapet wall.
With massive flames sweeping through two project sites under construction this Summer, the fire safety of construction sites has grabbed headlines throughout the greater Boston area. Fires destroyed two similar large wood framed residential developments at varying degrees of completion. The Ashmont in Dorchester, MA was weeks before opening, while the Cooper St. project in Waltham was still being framed. Code Red Consultants has been heavily involved in the education, training, and implementation of construction fire safety plans since the Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Code adopted NFPA 241, Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demo Operations in January of 2015. Through our industry involvement, Code Red Consultants is being viewed as thought leader when it comes to developing project specific construction fire safety plans, as Peter Harrod, P.E. was quoted in two recent Boston Globe articles.
For access to the articles, click below:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/07/27/waltham/TXhiVR5XiR4Jeg0N1x5vlL/story.html
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/12/lessons-not-learned/a3ZhFnxYRjVCVmYGBfznjP/story.html.
