Short story: I'm filling out a facility report on a small building. This particular form contains the following question:
SECTION 4. FIRE PROTECTION
4.1 What is the fire rating of your building (e.g., A1)?
Am I correct that this is a nonsense question, or based on an older version of the code with different terminology? (I'll point out that this form also asked what "earthquake zone" the building is in, but earthquake "zone" is not an accepted nomenclature these days; now it's all based on ground motion and spectral response, yadda-yadda-yadda, ask your friendly structural engineer).
Are they asking for the Occupancy Group? The Construction Type (they asked for this elsewhere on the form too)? The fire ratings of specific materials used in the building?
I'm confused. When I called them to ask about the earthquake question their response was so unhelpful that I'm disinclined to call them again. Anyone ever come across this terminology recently?
I don't know what they're asking for…seems like old BOCA or UBC terminology. Perhaps a short narrative that notes the occupancy group and the construction type is appropriate?
1-A was BOCA, which is not A1. I-A is in IBC and IFC. I'm fairly certain there has never been a 'construction type' A1. A1A as i recall is a highway in florida, which also has nothing to do with your question.
occupancy group seems a good guess. there is such thing as an A-1 assembly occupancy, and sometimes that is related to fire protection. if i were to respond to the words "fire rating" when said sequentially like that, i would answer in the form of "x hours."
who wrote the form? was it someone like the city that should know better, or someone on maintenance staff who had their 8 year old kid throw it together one evening as a way to justify why they should keep their job surfing the internet all day?
i did not know we got rid of seismic zones, but apparently that happened a long time ago.
Thanks for trying, you guys, but I think it comes back to a problem with the form. They ask for Construction Type elsewhere, and even delineate Type I, II etc. for you to choose from. I have never heard of an entire buildingbhaving a fire rating. I asked my code consultant and got the answer to a question I hadn't asked...love it when that happens!
Construction type as defined in the IBC (ex: type 2A) will give you the required rating of various structural elements. If you also need to use NFPA 101 (healthcare project, etc) then you need to use NFPA requirements. Best answer: ask the people who wrote the form what they are looking for. If you need more help with the crossover between IBC and NFPA, drop me a note at punkmotorcycles (at) gmail
Construction type I II etc is outmoded terms. Just give them IBC and be done w it
I'd rather not say who the author of the form is. But it is out of date in at least one area so there's no reason to think it's not just out of date in this one as well.
The team in charge of the form submittal is meeting tomorrow so we'll go through our options then.
Ha, no punch line. unless it's that architects are supposed to have all this knowledge but get flummoxed when anything doesn't fit the rules. Though maybe that's more true of engineers.
"fire rating" question - so frustrating and confusing
Short story: I'm filling out a facility report on a small building. This particular form contains the following question:
SECTION 4. FIRE PROTECTION
4.1 What is the fire rating of your building (e.g., A1)?
Am I correct that this is a nonsense question, or based on an older version of the code with different terminology? (I'll point out that this form also asked what "earthquake zone" the building is in, but earthquake "zone" is not an accepted nomenclature these days; now it's all based on ground motion and spectral response, yadda-yadda-yadda, ask your friendly structural engineer).
Are they asking for the Occupancy Group? The Construction Type (they asked for this elsewhere on the form too)? The fire ratings of specific materials used in the building?
I'm confused. When I called them to ask about the earthquake question their response was so unhelpful that I'm disinclined to call them again. Anyone ever come across this terminology recently?
Seems like it's asking for construction type like TYPE 1, PROTECTED or TYPE 5 or…(?)
Sorry,
just re-read your post
I don't know what they're asking for…seems like old BOCA or UBC terminology. Perhaps a short narrative that notes the occupancy group and the construction type is appropriate?
1-A was BOCA, which is not A1. I-A is in IBC and IFC. I'm fairly certain there has never been a 'construction type' A1. A1A as i recall is a highway in florida, which also has nothing to do with your question.
occupancy group seems a good guess. there is such thing as an A-1 assembly occupancy, and sometimes that is related to fire protection. if i were to respond to the words "fire rating" when said sequentially like that, i would answer in the form of "x hours."
who wrote the form? was it someone like the city that should know better, or someone on maintenance staff who had their 8 year old kid throw it together one evening as a way to justify why they should keep their job surfing the internet all day?
i did not know we got rid of seismic zones, but apparently that happened a long time ago.
could also be interior finishes- which is Class A, B, C or I, II, III - .. but the question makes me think that it's construction type...
Thanks for trying, you guys, but I think it comes back to a problem with the form. They ask for Construction Type elsewhere, and even delineate Type I, II etc. for you to choose from. I have never heard of an entire buildingbhaving a fire rating. I asked my code consultant and got the answer to a question I hadn't asked...love it when that happens!
Is there really no one at the entity asking the question that knows what the question is getting at? Who is having you fill out this form?
Construction type I II etc is outmoded terms. Just give them IBC and be done w it
I'd rather not say who the author of the form is. But it is out of date in at least one area so there's no reason to think it's not just out of date in this one as well.
The team in charge of the form submittal is meeting tomorrow so we'll go through our options then.
Thanks for the offer gruen!
I wasn't looking for their actual name, just an idea of what kind of entity they are. Government, insurance company, lender, or ??
Ha, no punch line. unless it's that architects are supposed to have all this knowledge but get flummoxed when anything doesn't fit the rules. Though maybe that's more true of engineers.
We used Occupancy as our answer. A-3
I would have been tempted to put in "Yes"
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.